0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

IRC コングレス 2011 出席報告書
2012/11/23 角2012 年度の IRC コングレスが英国ウインザー市で開催され、日本からは、日本ＩＲＣオーナーズ協会会長斜森氏がオーナー代表として、ＪＳＡＦ外洋計測委員長吉田氏、そしてＩＲＣレーティングオ
フィスの角の 3 名が参加した。
日時：2012 年 10 月 13 日、14 日
場所：Macdonald Hotel, Windsor, England
世界的な不景気の中、各国のＩＲＣフリートは全体的に縮小傾向が顕著であったが、中国、トルコ、
オランダ、日本などの国では増加が続いている。
フリートの縮小は、新規アプリケーションの減少と船齢の上昇を伴っている。世界的にイベント自体への参加が減っているという報告からも、景気低迷による、レジャーの手控えムードがある模様
だ。
ＲＯＲＣは将来のＩＲＣの方向付けを明確にする必要を感じているため、オーナー、レーティングオ
ーソリティー、ルールオーソリティーが協調しながら現状の分析とサービスの向上を目指すための方策をなんとか探り出したい気持ちが強い。
特に今回のコングレスでは、本題から少しずれるが非常に重要な、ＩＲＣの将来というテーマで議論が交わされた。その結果を見ると、ワンデザインクラス以外のキールボートにおけるＩＲＣシステ
ムは、比較的ハイエンドユーザーのものであるという認識が、少なくとも一般ユーザーの中には根強い。ＩＲＣのポリシーは、決してグランプリイベントを主眼に置いているのではなく、全てのボートに対してレーティング与えるものであるから、この認識は正しくない。しかし現実的に、プロのセーラーが乗るレースも、ナショナルチャンピオンシップもＩＲＣの下で行なわれ、オーナーが安くない代金を払い、公平なレーティングを得る場合、クラブレースだけに留まるオーナーにとってのＩＲＣは、あまり馴染みのないものとなるのは、世界に共通していることのようだ。
ここで重要な鍵となるのは、クラブ単位のレースとＩＲＣイベントに連続性を持たせることだというとが、今回のコングレスで明らかになった。つまり、ＰＨＲＦ（ポーツマスヤードスティックも）のようなパフォーマンスハンディキャップをいかにして、ＩＲＣの予備軍にしてゆくか、もしくは、いかに協調して行くかということである。コングレスでは、ＰＨＲＦはＩＲＣの脅威とはならず、協調することにより、共に歩んで行くべきものであるという結論に至っている。また、そのためのデュアルスコアリング方

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟式を推奨してゆこうという結論にも至った。これはまさに日本の状況を物語っているものだ。ＰＨＲ
Ｆを確立させようという動きが日本にあるが、やはり理想は、より高度なレーティングシステムと連続した繋がりを持たることであろう。
一方、来年のルールの整備という重要な役割の部分のコングレス自体は例年と変わらず、ＲＯＲ
C ＴＣ、各国のオーナー協会、ルールオーソリティーの代表者達が、来年のためのルール整備に向け、時間内一杯の議論が繰り広げられた。詳細については、以下の議事録訳を参照いただきたい。
日本からは、オーナーズ協会の意見として、ボートのモディフィケーションを行なった際のＴＣＣの判定が、元々異なるデザインとして全く同じデータを提出する場合のケースと、評価方法が違い、結果としてのＴＣＣも変わるのではないか、という質問を行なった。これは、リグなどのモディフィケーションを施したボートが非常に高い性能を出した事例があり、もしモディフィケーションではなく、新デザインとして申告した場合に、異なる結果が出たのではないかとの疑念から出た質問であった。結果として、ＲＯＲＣのテクニカルコミッティーの回答は、全く同じデータを持つ 2 艇のボートの場合、例え一方がモディフィケーションによるもの、他方が新デザインによるものでも、両艇のＴＣＣは同一になる、というものであり、日本側の疑念は否定された。

以下、議題順のまとめ。
2012 年 10 月 13 日会議
1.

会議の
会議の開会
IRC チェアマン、Peter Wykeham-Martin のあいさつ。

2.

欠席者と
欠席者と委任投票

3.

2011 年コングレス議事録
コングレス議事録の議事録の確認
昨年議事録の確認。異議なく承認。

4.

議題にない
議題にない要審議事項にない要審議事項
・エンドースメント

ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーはエンドースメントの要件について再検討を行ない、2012 年 1 月にエンドースメント規則（the rules for Endorsement）の改訂版を発表している（Appendix 1 参照）。この件につき審議が行われた結果、重量計測が実践的でない大型艇については、フリーボード計測からの重量計算がより一般的であることが指摘された。ま

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

た、ＧＢＲにおいて、トラベルホイスト（トラべリフト）にプレッシャーパッドを装着して重量計測を行なう試みが報告された。これについて、マルコム・ラナル（副議長）は、彼の経験によると、この方法は信頼性に欠くとの発言があった。更なる情報が入手され次第報告するものとする。
・ボートデータ

開示データを増やすことは、デザイナーによるデザインの最適化を助長することが懸念されるため、テクニカルコミッティーとしてはやりたくない。しかし、レーティ
ングオフィスの任意の艇のデータファイルをその艇に対して提供することは行なってゆくべきとの考えが示された。これについては、議題 8.2.2、オーストラリアサブミッション２、でも審議された。
ボート重量について、フリーボードからの推定による重量値は、エラーを含む可能性が高いとの認識がなされた。レース主催者は、重量計測を行なった艇のみ参加を認めることもできる
が、注意しなければならないのは、これにより参加へのハードルが高くなると感じるボートがいるかもしれない点だ。
・新機軸

新機軸に対するテクニカルコミッティーの取り組みは、四辺形ヘッドセイルへの対応案にその例がよく表れており、議題 8 で審議されている。
・軽量艇“軽量”という表現は主観的なものである。判断はテクニカルコミッティーに委ねられるが、超軽量とレースボートを全て含ませようとすることは危険だ。今年のレース結果
から見ると、バランスは適度に取れていると考えられる。オーストラリアからの報告によると、
アンケートの結果、48％程の回答者が、ＩＲＣは軽量艇の開発を妨げていると感じており、その結果、多くのセーラーが機会を失い意欲を削がれる結果を生んでいる。アンケートをAppendix 2 にまとめる。
・HPR

ＲＯＲＣはＨＰＲの運用に関わることを辞退したと報告された。ダン・ノーランは、ＲＯＲC がＨＰＲに関わることは望ましいことで、今後も提案を続ける意向である旨が伝えられた。現時点でＨＰＲの具体的な進捗は見られない。しかしテクニカルコミッティーは、
ＨＰＲの進み具合を今後とも確認してゆき、ＩＲＣのその分野に対するプレッシャーを和らげる意味においても、レース志向の強いボートに対する適当なルールとしてＨＰＲを機能させることも視野に入れることを約束した。
・デュアルスコアリング テクニカルコミッティーは、パフォーマンスハンディキャップを向上させるために、ＲＹＡ、ＥＣＨＯその他の団体と協議し、デュアルスコアリングを身近に、そしてＰ
ＨＳからＩＲＣへの移行を容易にすることを目指すこととした。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

・ＩＲＣのプロモーション ＲＯＲＣはプロのＰＲエージェントに依頼することを検討したが、エー
ジェント自身が貢献することが難しいと判断したため計画を断念したことが報告された。プロ
モーションに関してＲＯＲC は、将来的にどのようなステップを踏むべきか模索中である。
・世界選手権テクニカルコミッティーは、ＩＲＣボートによる世界選手権開催の価値について未だに確信がない。これについては、ＩＳＡＦの世界選手権開催ポリシーにも絡んでくる。実際は、この 1 年の間に何も進展が見られず、近い将来に変化があるとも思えない。
5.

ＩＲＣ公示
ＩＲＣ公示について
公示について2012/01 のヘビーウェザージブ（Appendix 3）および、2012/02 のフットオフセット(Appendex 4)に関して確認された。

6.

テクニカルコミッティーからの報告
テクニカルコミッティーからの報告
マイク・アーウィンからの報告によると（Appendex 5）、テクニカルコミッティーが危惧するのは、世界のＩＲＣフリートは、8 月末時点で、2011 年に 2％程の減少を見せ、さらに 2012 年には 8％近い減少を示した点である。テクニカルコミッティーの考察は、この落ち込みは、世界経済の影響によるところが大部分を占める。また、意見交換が行われ、レガッタのエントリー数が世界的に減少傾向にあることが確認された。

7.

ＩＲＣの
ＩＲＣの世界的傾向
マイク・アーウィンが統計（Appendix 6）の概略を報告した。新規申告の減少に伴い、ＩＲＣフリートの高齢化が見られている。全体的に、統計データは、ＩＲＣが引き続き広範囲なボートサ
イズと船齢で使われていることも確認できた。

8.

2013 年ＩＲＣ規則変更
ＩＲＣ規則変更のプロポーザル
規則変更のプロポーザル、のプロポーザル、検討および検討および決定事項
および決定事項
8.1 ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティー
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティー
8.1.1 規則 17.2..
17.2..2
変更理由：

17.2 は計測状態を示すが、可変バラスト（ウォーターバラスト）の状態が明確に記述されていない。明確な記述がされるべきである。
変更：
り外すこと。

17.2.2 燃料、水、可変バラスト、その他のタンクの内容物。 ガス・ボトルは取

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

変更による影響：
審議結果：なし。脱落の訂正。

全会一致で承認。

8.1.2 規則 21.3.4(c)変更理由：

規則 21.3.4（ｃ）はスピネーカーを指しているが、スピネーカー・ポールを指すの

が正しい。
変更：

21.3.4 RRS 50.3(c)を削除し、以下と置換える。

ヘッドセイルは、以下の条件を満足する場合、スピネーカー・ポールまたはウィスカ・ポールにシートを取り、あるいはクリューまたはタックを取り付けても良い。
a)スピネーカーがセットされていないときb)

HSA とLLmax の寸法がそのレーティング数値を超えないときc)

ノンスピネーカースピネーカー・ポール無しとして評価される艇は、ウィスカ・ポールを申

告する。
d)

ポールの寸法ＳＴＬが ＳＴＬのレーティング数値を超えないとき

e)21.3.6 a)に基づいてスピネーカー・ポールなしで計測された艇の場合、ウィスカ・ポール（STLとして計測される）はＳＴＬを超えてはいけない。
二番目のヘッドセイルを同時にセットしてもよい。
変更による影響：
審議結果：なし。エラーの訂正のみ。

全会一致で承認。

8.1.3 規則 21.3.7
変更理由：

リーフすることが可能なスピネーカーが開発されたが、ＩＲＣの基本的な考えとして、その様なセイルを禁じたり開発を妨げることはしない。しかし、このようなセイルは、フルサイズで展開した場合スピネーカーとして、リーフして展開した場合、ヘッドセイルとして使用できる可能性がある。このような場合、そのボートは大きなサイズのヘッドセイルを、レーティングの増加無しに効果的に展開できるという利益を与えることになる。このような矛盾は、フルサイズ時にスピネーカーとして計測したセイルはリーフ時にもスピネーカーとして計測することを要件に加えることにより回避できる。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

挿入：

21.3.7

スピネーカーはリーフして展開することができる。但し、どのようなリーフを行なった状態で計測しても、スピネーカーとしての要件を満たさなければならない。
変更による影響：審議：

規則内ループホールの削除

ラフの部分を巻いてリーフする場合は、同じラフ長さを持つと見なされる。現実

的には、全ての可能なリーフ状態をルール変更に基づいて計測することは非常に難しい。また、レーティングＨＳＡとその他のレーティングパラメータを越えないのであれば、リーフしたス
ピネーカーをヘッドセイルとして使用するのを禁ずる理由は無い。
審議結果：コングレスは本プロポーザルを先送りすることとし、テクニカルコミッティーに再考を求め、必要なら、2013 年のプロポーザルとして再提出してもらうこととした。
8.1.4 新規則 21.3.8
変更理由：

リーフィングスピネーカーの代替として、セイルメーカーは、切り取り可能な部

分を持つセイルを開発した。リーフ可能なスピネーカーと違い、これは健全な開発とは言えない。
1.

ＩＲＣ規則 2.5 が適用される可能性

2.

ＩＲＣ規則 8.9 が適用される可能性

3.

ワンデザインでは、ワンデザインクラス規則に抵触する可能性

4.

セイルは、一部が取り外された場合も取り外されていない場合も、RRS 77、を満たす必

要がある
5.

ＩＲＣ規則 21.2.2 が適用される可能性

6.

ＩＲＣ規則 21.1.5(d)は、連続した期間に行われるレガッタの間、搭載するセイルは同じであることを要求している。セイルの一部が取り外された場合、そのセイルは異なるセイルと認識されるかどうかについて議論の余地がある。
7.

ＩＲＣ規則 21.6.1(a)は、搭載できるスピネーカーの数を、申告により増やしていない限り、

最大 3 枚と定めている。スピネーカーの一部を取り外した状態でもスピネーカーとしての要件を満たしている（つまり、ヘッドセイルとして計測しない）場合、これが余分のスピネーカーと見なされるかどかも議論の余地がある。そのボートがすでに 3 枚かそれより多いいスピネーカ
ーを積んでいる場合、これは別の申告が必要になるのではないか。
8.

ＩＲＣ規則 21.1.8 は、一枚のローラーファーリングヘッドセイルのボートに対してレーティン

グクレジットを与えている。もし、一部がセイルから取り外されて、それがヘッドセイルとして使えるのなら、シングルローラーファーリングヘッドセイルクレジットを受けたボートは、ＩＲＣ規則

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

21.8 に違反している。
9.

取り外す部分が一つよりも多くすることも可能であり、セーリング角度やセーリングコン

ディションに合わせて異なる部分を使うことができる。
挿入

21.3.8

変更による影響：
審議結果：

取り外し可能な部分を持つセイルは使ってはならない。
規則のループホールの削除。非健全な開発の防止。

全会一致で承認。

8.1.5 ヘッドセイル上部幅
ヘッドセイル上部幅、上部幅、規則 21.7.1 の変更
変更理由：

2012 年期間中、ヘッド近くにフルレングスバテンを持ち、セイルのトップを人為的に短くする多くのヘッドセイルが確認された。これにより、レーテインングヘッドセイル面積の計算で、実際の減少幅よりも極端に大きく減少させることが可能となる。
このような操作が広まる前に、ループホールを埋めることが望まれる。
そのために、ヘッドセイル上部幅の採用を提案する。
この計測値の採用により、現行のＨＨＢリミットは削除される。よって、要求されるパラメーターの数は増えない。

注：ペナルティーを受けないＨＵＷの最大許容値を 0.55*ＨＴＷとし、超過分の 3 倍の値をＬＬに加えるというのが現時点での提案であるが、リサーチの完了とセイルメーカーからの意見照会を待って最終とする。また、ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーにより、同様の効果を他の手法により実現することも考えられる。この結果により、下の変更案が変更される可能性がある。
定義の削除： HHB

搭載されレース中使用されるヘッドセイルの内最も大きいトップのトップの幅。
定義の挿入： HUW

最大面積を持つヘッドセイルの上部幅
上部幅で、上部
上部リーチのヘッド
上部幅
上部 リーチの点リーチの 点 はヘッドの点と 4 分の 3 リーチの点
リーチ上の点となる。
リーチの点から等距離にあるリーチ
リーチ
変更：

21.7.1ヘッドセイル面積（ＨＳＡ）は次式より求める：

HSＡ=0.125*LL*(2*LP+3*HHW+2*HTW)HSA の計算において、HHB が、0.09ｍもしくは 0.008*LL の大きい方よりも大きい場合、その

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

過剰分の 5 倍の値が、HSA 計算式内の LL に加算される。
0.0625*LL*(4*LP+6*HHW+3*HTW+2*HUW+0.09)
もし HUW が、0.55*HTW よりも大きい場合、その過剰分の 3 倍の値が、HSA 計算式内の LLに加算される。
変更：

ＩＲＣ規則内のＨＨＢ参照を全て削除し、必要な部分に HUW を加える。

変更による影響：審議：

ループホールの削除。規則悪用の排除。

マイク・アーウィンによると、テクニカルコミッティーは本案件への対処する最良策に至っていない。従って、コングレスが本提案の趣旨を理解し、テクニカルコミッティーに対し、提案規則変更を編集して最終案をまとめる裁量を認めることを求めた。また、大多数のセイルは再計測の必要がないことも付け加えられた。
審議結果：コングレスは全会一致で、提案を承認し、テクニカルコミッティーに、提案規則

変更の編集を行ない最終案をまとめる裁量を与えることを決めた。
8.1.6 フットオフセットの定義
フットオフセットの定義、定義、新規則 21.7.3
変更理由：2012 年期間中、フットに大きなカーブを持たせ、ラフ長さを意図的に少なくさせたヘッドセイルを製作したセイルメーカーがいた。これは 2012 年 5 月に出されたＩＲＣ公示
2012/02 により、リグファクターの調整で対処された。この公示内容を正式にＩＲＣ規則に反映させる必要がある。
これは ISAF ERS のフットのフットの中点フットの中点により対応することが可能であるが、実践的理由により、ＩＲ
中点
Ｃがフットオフセットを定義することが望ましい。
定義挿入：

フットオフセット

ヘッドセイルフットとタックのクリューの点
ヘッドセイルフット タックの点
タックの点とクリューの
クリューの点を結んだ直線との最大オフセット値
挿入：

21.7.3フットオフセットが LP の 7.5％を越える場合、フットオフセットは申告されなければならず、そのフットオフセットをＬＬに加えてＨＳＡの計算が行なわれる。
再ナンバー： 現行 21.7.3 を 21.7.4 に。
変更による影響：

ループホールの削除。規則悪用の排除。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

審議：7.5％の制限値はセイルメーカーからの情報に基づき、シーティングポイントや

ファーリングドラムによるタック位置の持ち上げなどの理由のためのフットオフセットをペナラ
イズすることを意図していない。2012 年中に判明した中には、ＬＰの 15％に達するフットオフ
セットを持つヘッドセイルもあった。
審議結果：

全会一致で承認。

8.1.7
8.1.7 外側の外側の点の距離の
距離の計測
変更理由：

大型艇では、大きなヘッドセイルをホイストするために、ラフトラックをかなりの上下長さに渡って（マスト 1/3 の長さ程まで）後方に曲げ、マスト下部に向かってマスト前後の長さを大きくして行くやり方が一般的である。外側
外側の外側の点の距離は、ラフトラックを含むマストス
パーの後方エッジから計測する。ＥＲＳ H.4.2 によると、ローカルな曲がりは無視される。マスト長さの 1/3 の距離は、ローカルとは見なされないので、外側の点の距離は、人為的に減少され、これら大型ヨットはレーティングで恩恵を被ることになる。マストの前後長さの制限を持たないクラスのボートもこれを使って有利となり得る。
変更：

E

メインセール（またはスクーナー
スクーナーの場合のフォア・セイル
フォア・セイル）の外側
外側の
メインセールスクーナー
フォア・セイル
外側 の点の距離。外側25mm 幅のバンドでなくてはな
距離 外側リミット・マーク
外側リミット・マークは明瞭に識別でき、動かせない
リミット・マークらない。計測バンドがない場合は、ブーム最後端まで測る。外側
外側の外側の点の距離の計測では、Ｅ
ＲＳ H.4.2 は適用しない。ぎ装品、部分的な曲がり、部分的な切り欠き、または、セイルトラッ
クやセイルトラックサポートの前後長さの増加は無視しなければならない。
変更による影響：審議；

ループホールの削除。規則悪用の排除。

前述は、スーパーヨットでの現象であるが、他種のヨットで同じやり方が採用されない理由がない。マイク・アーウィンによると、ＯＲＣは、統一を図るために、上記と同一の表現を規則内に用いることに同意したとのことである。テクニカルコミッティーは、ＩＳＡＦ ERSのワーキングパーティーと協調して、ＥＲＳに本要件を盛り込む作業を行なった。
審議結果：

全会一致で承認。

8.1.8 ヘビーウェザージブの定義
ヘビーウェザージブの定義
変更理由：

ISAF オフショアスペシャルレギュレーションにあるヘビーウェザージブの定義

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

は、2012 年に変更が加えられ、文末の、“そしてリーフポイントを持たない”が削除された。ＩＲ
Ｃの定義は、この記述が削除されていなかったので、ＩＲＣ公示 2012/01 にてヘビーウェザー
ジブのＩＲＣ定義の訂正が行なわれていた。
変更：

ＨＷＪ

ヘビーウェザージブ。フォアトライアングル高さの二乗の 13.5％を越えない面積のヘッドセイル。
変更による影響：
審議結果：なし。誤りの訂正。

全会一致で承認。

8.1.9 訂正
脱落や誤植への修正が以下のとおりなされた。
8.9.1

規則 21.7.3 内の HSA と LP の間にＬＬを挿入。

8.9.2

規則 8.1.2 内の 5 月 30 日を 5 月 31 日に変更。

8.9.3

MUW の定義を、意味を変えることなく、ERS と整合するように変更。

コングレスは以上の修正を承認した。
8.1.10 四辺形ヘッドセイル
四辺形ヘッドセイル
現在ＩＲＣ規則は、セイルを 1 点を越える点でシーティングすることを禁じている。これにより、
結果的に四辺形ヘッドセイルは排除される。
風洞実験と実践経験によると、四辺形セイルは、そのサイズとエリアに対して、空力学的に非常に効率が良く、広い範囲のセーリング角度と風速に対応できると考えられる。従って四辺形セイルは、現行多くのボートで使われている‘コード０’ヘッドセイルに換わるものとなる可能性を秘めている。四辺形セイルを認めることは、ＩＲＣ規則 2.3 に準じるものであると考えられる。
しかしながら、規則 2.4 で排除している‘武器のレース’を奨励することを避けなければならない。そのために、まずは、少なくとも四辺形エリアの計算において、実際の面積よりも大きな

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

面積をレーティングで使うことが考えられる。これを採用することで、四辺形セイルを合法化し、さらに経験と知識が蓄積されることが期待できる一方、全てのボートになくては‘ならない装備’となることを防げる。このアプローチは、ＩＲＣの新しい開発に対するポリシーに合致している。
ここで、四辺形セイルをどのように計測するかの疑問が残る。現在 ERS は、四辺形メインセイルのみ対応しているので、我々は独自の定義等を開発しなければならない。
ＥＲＳを見ると、クリュー／クリューの点／シート等の１２の項目で参照がなされている。ＩＲＣ
規則には、ヘッドセイルとセイルのシーティングおよび関連する定義で 10 の関連規則がある。
これら全てに対して注意深い検討を行ない、明確な規則を作り、ループホールの可能性を排除しなければならない。
従って、これを実行することは、生易しいことではない！
よってＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは、ＩＲＣ規則 2013 年に四辺形ヘッドセイルを盛り込むことは適切ではないという結論に達した。しかしながら、ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは、四辺形ヘッド
セイルをＩＲＣに盛り込むという原則を支持するので、ＩＲＣ規則 2014 に盛り込む可能性を探る
ために、2013 年ＩＲＣコングレスに同プロポーザルを提出することを考えている。
コングレスは、上記のテクニカルコミッティーからの報告を勘案し、審議の結果、これらのセイ
ルを許すことで、間違ったメッセージを、高レベルでない一般レーサーに対して与えるかもしれないことに疑問を呈した。また、オーナーが負担するかもしれない費用についても懸念された。
8.2 各国ＩＲＣ
各国ＩＲＣオーナー
ＩＲＣオーナー協会
オーナー協会および協会およびＩＲＣ
およびＩＲＣルールオーソリティー
ＩＲＣルールオーソリティー
8.2.1 オーストラリア サプミッション 1：クルー体重
クルー体重
現状：

22.4.2

証書に記載されたクルーの人数、または証書記載のクルー人数×８

５kg のクルー重量を超えてはならない
変更理由：

パフォーマンスの観点から、レール上の重量は、最も重要な乗員の要素でる。

頭数による制限は、セーリングコミュニティーにおける小柄もしくは女性メンバーを排除する
危険を持つ。一人が提供できる重量が大柄の男性のようにはいかないからだ

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

変更提案は、規則の視点をパフォーマンスの側面に変え、小柄もしくは女性セーラーもレー
ル上で価値あるメンバーになることを可能にすることにより、セーリングの価値をより深めようとするものである。
提案：

ＩＲＣ規則 22.4.2 の変更

22.4.2 証書に記載されたクルーの人数、または証書記載のクルー人数×８５kg のクルー重量を超えてはならない。クルー重量は、証書記載のクルー人数×８５kg を超えてはならない。
変更による影響：頭数を使うオプションを排除し、総重量のみをＩＲＣ規則のクルー制限とする。
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーのコメント：

この提案を採用することで、レース委員会がレース公示により明示しない限りレース委員会に任されていたオプションが無効になり、現行のＩＲＣが持つ柔軟さを減少させることになる。
しかし、テクニカルコミッティーは、本件の主旨が、クルーナンバーに対してクルー重量であることを理解する。
しかしながら、プロポーザルの効果は現行の規則下でも、イベント主催側がレース公示でク
ルー体重のみを採用する旨を明示することで成し遂げられる。
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーの中でも本サブミッションを巡って意見が２つに割れたので、ここで意見を述べることは控えたい。
審議：

本件の鍵となるパラメータはクルー重量であり、現行の規則は軽いセーラーに対して差別的である。また、レース公示により、この規則を変更したり削除することができることも確認された。
審議結果：

23 票の賛成、21 の反対により、コングレスは本提案を承認した。（日本（３票）

は、レース公示で本規則の変更が可能であり、現行規則でも同様の効果が保証されると言う理由から、反対に投票した）
8.2.2 オーストラリア サプミッション 2： ボートデータ

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

現状：

ＩＲＣ規則は、この点に関する記述はない。ボートオーナーは、証書と計測への準拠に責任を負っている。ＩＲＣレーティングは、ＩＲＣレーティングの計算で使われる全てのデータを開示していない。
変更理由：

ボートオーナーは、自分のレーティングが間違っていないかの疑念を抱いていても、自分のボートの計算で使われた数値をチェックするという基本的な手続きを踏むことができない。また、ルールオーソリティーは、海外から来たボートの場合や受け付けた新規申告が残っている記録よりも以前のものだった場合、このデータを入手出来ないかもしれない。
オーナーは、ＩＲＣとＲＲＳの下で義務がある準拠するということを確かめる術がない状態だ。
新しい規則の追加は、オーナーやルールオーソリティーが、レーティングのために使われたデータへアクセスし、データの正確さをチェックすることを可能にするものである。
提案：

新規則 9.11 を挿入。
9.11

レーティングレビューの対象となるボートのオーナー、もしくはレーティングレビューを要求しようとするオーナー、もしくは、そのボートのルールオーソリティーは、計算に使われるメジャメントデータをチェックする目的で、ボートのメジャメントファイルのコピーを要求することができる。レーティングオーソリティーは、不当にデータを非開示にすることはできない。規則 13.3 を参照。
変更による影響：

ボートオーナーもしくは関係するルールオーソリティーがそのボートのレーティングの計算に使われたデータへのアクセスができる規定を設ける。
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーのコメント：

基本的なコンフィギュレーション、材質、バルブ重量を除いて、ＩＲＣ証書はＴＣＣを計算するための全てのデータを含んでいる。オーナーからの要求があれば、ＩＲＣレーティングオーソリティーは、直ちにこの情報をオーナーに提供するだ
ろう、また、定期的にこのような手続きができるようにするには、どんな方法がよいのか現在調査中である。
従ってＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは、本サブミッションの必要性を認識せず、支持もしない。
審議：

かつてこの様な問題に直面したことのあるレーティングオフィスはなかった。インフォメーションは定期的にリクエストにより提供されている。
審議結果：

２０票の賛成と２４票の反対で、コングレスは本提案を否決した。（日本は反対

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟の票を投じた）8.2.3 オーストラリア サプミッション 3： エンドースドデータの棄却
エンドースドデータの棄却
現状：

12.5

レーティング･オーソリティはレーティングの計算根拠として、ルール・

オーソリティーより提出されたデータを使用するが、同時に特定のデータを棄却する、あるいはプロダクションボートの場合には、そのスタンダード値を用いる権利を有する。
変更理由：

エンドースド証書を持つボートは、フル計測が行なわれ、エンドースド証書ガイ

ドラインに従っている。従って、エンドースドデータのための規則自体の厳格さと要求に従っているボートデータに変更を加えることは適当ではない。
本変更はまた、データの棄却はプロダクションボートに留まるものではなく、非計測もしくは非申告に基づくボート全てに行なわれることを明確にする。
提案：

ＩＲＣ規則 13.5 の変更
13.5

レーティング･オーソリティはレーティングの計算根拠として、

ルール・オーソリティーより提出されたデータを使用するが、同時に特定のデータを棄却する、
あるいは非エンドースド証書が発行されるプロダクションボートの場合には、そのスタンダード
値を用いる権利を有する。データの棄却についての本規則は、エンドースド証書ボートには適用しない。（規則 8.5 も参照のこと）
変更による影響：

データの棄却はプロダクションボートのみならず、全てのボートに適用することを明確にする。データ棄却の適用を非エンドースド証書にのみ制限する。つまり、エンドースメントのガイドラインに従い、適切な計測が行なわれたデータについて棄却は行なわない。
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーのコメント：

エンドースド証書を持つボートは、必ずしも重量計測を含むフル計測を行なっているものではない。エンドースド証書は、ＩＲＣが認識したワン
デザインクラスでオーナーがクラスルールに準拠していると宣言した場合に発行される。同様に、多くのプロダクションボートは、スタンダード化された、‘安全な’重量とハルデータに基づいてエンドースド証書が発行されている。
さらに、計測不良の発生に関して未知の部分が多い。計測の不良があった場合のデータをＩ
ＲＣレーティングオーソリティーが棄却できないとしたら、それは間違いである。テクニカルコミ

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

ッティーは、本プロポーザルによりどのような改善が見られるのか理解できない。よって本プ
ロポーザルを支持しない。
審議：

長時間に渡る議論を経て、コングレスは上記テクニカルコミッティーのコメントを受け入れた。
審議結果：８票の賛成と３３票の反対を持って、コングレスはポロポーザルを否決した。

（日本は、反対票を投じた）
8.2.4 オーストラリア サプミッション 4： クルーの変更
クルーの変更
現状：

ＩＲＣ規則は本件に関しての定めを持たない。

変更理由：

ボートは、風の弱い日などクルーを陸に残しレースを有利に戦うことを選択す

ることがある。アンケートの結果によると、これは望ましいことではないとの意見が多数を占めている（回答者の 7 割以上）ことが判った。しかし、それでも実際には、そのような選択を選んでしまう。これはセーリングスポーツにとって健全ではなく、ＩＲＣレガッタに参加するクルーを排除することになる。
提案：

ＩＲＣ規則 22.4.4 と 22.4.5 を挿入。
22.4.4

連続したレガッタ中、レイデイを含み、乗員は同一で、全てのレースに搭乗しなければならない。この規則は、レース公示で変更できる。
22.4.5

例外として、病気、怪我、不測の事態などの場合は、レース委員会の許可を持ってのみ、乗員を減少もしくは変更することができる。この規則は、レース公示により変更できる、規則 22.4.2 も参照のこと。
変更による影響：

レガッタ中のクルーの移動もしくは余剰人員の制限。

ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーのコメント：

世界で行なわれているレガッタの大多数で、クル

ーを日毎に変更することが通常行なわれているであろう。本プロポーザルは、大多数のレガッタがＩＲＣ規則をレース公示で変更することを、ごく少数のみがこの制限を望むという現状の中、要求することになる。これはイベント主催団体の問題である。
ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは、本サブミッションを支持しない。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

審議：

議論の末、コングレスは、このような習慣が望ましいものではないことであるが、制限は各レガッタの判断に任せるべきであるという認識に達した。
審議結果：賛成 5 票、反対３５票で、本サブミッションは否決された。（日本は反対票）

8.2.5 オーストラリア サプミッション 5： ルールオーソリティー規程
ルールオーソリティー規程
現況：

11.1

レース公示において、IRC 規則の 8.6、9.6、14.1、15.1、21.1.5(d)と(e)と(f)、21.8.4、22.4 の要件を変更することが出来る。 他の IRC 規則は修正することはできない。
21.6.2 (b) ルール・オーソリティは管轄するレースが ISAF スペシャルレギュレーションカテゴ
リー3 もしくはそれ以上で行われるレースについて、参加艇はその IRC 証書に記載されているスピネーカー数よりも更に一つの追加スピネーカーを、レイテッドＳＰＡを超えない面積である
ことを条件として、レーティング値の増加なしに積むことができる旨の規定を定めることができる。そのような規定は、レース公示に記載しなければならない。
変更理由：

ＩＲＣ規則はルールオーソリティーに対して、国内ポリシーへの配慮に関して限られた機会しか与えていない。レース委員会は、レース公示による明示により変更の機会が得られる。規則の変更によりルールオーソリティーは、ＩＲＣ規則そのものの変更を行なうことなく、ローカルの要件を盛り込むことができ、国内における規則の整合性が保たれる。
本サブミッションが可決されれば、ＩＲＣ規則 21.6.1(b)の内容は重複となる。ルールオーソリテ
ィー規程のレース公示による変更を認めないのは、ＲＲＳに準じている。
提案：

ＩＲＣ規則 11.1 の変更、新たにＩＲＣ規則 11.2 を挿入、ＩＲＣ規則 21.6.1(b)を削除。
11.1

ルールオーソリティーもしくはレース公示は、IRC 規則の 8.6、9.6、14.1、

15.1、21.1.5(d)と(e)と(f)、21.6.1(b)、21.8.4、22.1.2 そして 22.4 の要件を変更することが出来る。
他の IRC 規則は修正することはできない。
11.2

ルールオーソリティーが規則に規程を設けた場合、レース公示でその規則もしくは規程を変更することはできない。
21.6.2 (b) ルール・オーソリティは管轄するレースが ISAF スペシャルレギュレ
ーションカテゴリー3 もしくはそれ以上で行われるレースについて、参加艇はその IRC 証書に記載されているスピネーカー数よりも更に一つの追加スピネーカーを、レイテッドＳＰＡを超え

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

ない面積であることを条件として、レーティング値の増加なしに積むことができる旨の規定を定めることができる。そのような規定は、レース公示に記載しなければならない。
変更による影響：記載なし。

IRC テクニカルコミッティーのコメント：

テクニカルコミッティーはプロポーザルの主旨を支持するが、ＩＲＣ規則 21.6.1（ｂ）および 22.1.2 を含めることは、ＩＲＣルールオーソリティーに必要以上に権利を与えることになると考える。
さらに、ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは提案の新規則 11.2 で意図していることを理解しているものの、イベントによっては、これが過渡の制限になるのではないかと考える。
ＩＲＣイベントへの海外からの参加者が、ナショナルＩＲＣ規程を認識することを確実なものにするため、これらはそのイベントのレース公示に明示するべきである。
従って、以下の代替プロポーザルを提案する：
提案：

ＩＲＣ規則 11.1 の変更、新たにＩＲＣ規則 11.2 および 11.3 を挿入、ＩＲＣ規則

21.6.1(b)を削除。
11.1

ルールオーソリティーもしくはレース公示は、IRC 規則の 8.6、9.6、14.1、

15.1、21.1.5(d)と(e)と(f)、21.8.4、そして 22.4 の要件を変更することが出来る。 他の IRC 規則
は修正することはできない。
11.2

ルールオーソリティーは、管轄するレースが ISAF スペシャルレギュレ

ーションカテゴリー3 もしくはそれ以上で行われる場合、規則 21.6.1 を、参加艇がその IRC 証書に記載されているスピネーカー数よりも更に一つの追加スピネーカーを、レイテッドＳＰＡを
超えない面積であることを条件として、レーティング値の増加なしに積むことができる、とする
内容に変更するための規程を設けることができる。
11.3

ルールオーソリティーが規則に規程を設けた場合、レース公示でその規則もしくは規程を、ルールオーソリティーの許可なく変更することはできない。ルールオ
ーソリティー規程は、レース公示に明示されなくてはならない。
21.6.2 (b) ルール・オーソリティは管轄するレースが ISAF スペシャルレギュレ
ーションカテゴリー3 もしくはそれ以上で行われるレースについて、参加艇はその IRC 証書に記載されているスピネーカー数よりも更に一つの追加スピネーカーを、レイテッドＳＰＡを超え

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

ない面積であることを条件として、レーティング値の増加なしに積むことができる旨の規定を定めることができる。そのような規定は、レース公示に記載しなければならない。
現行の規則 21.6.1(a)を 21.6.1.に再ナンバリング。
審議：

コングレスはテクニカルコミッティーによる補足サブミッションの主旨に同意するが、ＩＲＣルールオーソリティーに全てを委ねることに関して危惧する。よって、規則 11.1 にさらに修正を加えた次の提案を行なった。
11.1

ルールオーソリティーもしくはレース公示は、IRC 規則の 8.6、9.6、14.1、

15.1、21.1.5(d)と(e)と(f)、21.8.4、そして 22.4 の要件を変更することが出来る。 そのような規程は、ナショナルＩＲＣオーナーズ協会が存在する場合、その協会の承認を受けなければならない。他の IRC 規則は修正することはできない。
審議結果：

賛成２６票、反対１３票で、コングレスは、テクニカルコミッティーによる補足と更に上記の変更を加えたサブミッションを可決した。（日本は反対票）
8.2.6 フランス サプミッション 1： クルーナンバーの検討
ルーナンバーの検討
現況：
変更の理由：
１／

次の事項が確認された。
ＩＲＣにより計算されるクルーナンバーのパラメータは非常に高い。（LOA 10m

クルー＝7、LOA 12 クルー＝10、LOA 13.7m クルー＝13）2／

このクルーナンバーは、ＩＲＣレースにおいて、尊重される規則ではない。主催者は、これを無視することも、Ｎ+１，Ｎ+２などと変更することもできる。
3／

これはワンオフボートの場合は理解でき、性能計算はレール上のクルー重量を考慮し行なわれる。そのため、ワンオフボートはプロダクションボートに対して優位さを持っている。
４／重いクルーを多く集めることは益々困難になってきている。

５／

多人数のクルーを抱える時のランニングコストは、クルーザー・レーサーオー

ナーにとって悩みの種である。
６／

レール上、ライフラインから乗り出しているクルーの姿を見ると、クルーザー・レ

ーサーのオーナーに、ＩＲＣは彼らのために作られたものであるということを納得させることが困難になってきている。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

提案：

北と南の国々からの 7，8 人の代表者とＴＣからの 2 人のメンバーから成るワー

キンググループを作ることを提案する。このグループの任務は、・クルーナンバーを現行よりも 15％ほど少なくするための新しい計算方法を提案すること。
・必要であれば、上記の計算方法を数個提案する。
・クルーナンバーとクルー総重量の関係の評価。
・これらの制限を忠実に守らせるための方策の開発。
グループによる作業の結論は、2013 年 9 月までに発表し、各国に伝えられる。
同様に、ワーキンググループは、このクルーナンバー減少についてのサブミッションをＩＲＣコングレス 2013 に提出する。
変更による影響：
審議：

記載なし。

コングレスは、クルーを見つけることが困難になっているのが共通の問題であるということを認識しているものの、クルーナンバーを単純に減少させることで問題解決になるとは限らないという認識を表明した。この変更を採用することにより、ボート上のクルーのポジションを減少させることとなる。コングレスはまた、クルーナンバー／重量のテーマの繰り返
しにも終止符を打ちたいと願っている。
これは正式なサブミッションではなく、本ミーティングが始まる前の 24 時間の内に受け取ったものであった。
審議結果：コングレスは投票なしで、マルコム・ラナル、ジャック・ペレティエ、バリー・ハームスワースらより成るワーキンググループが本件についての検討を行ない、必要なサブミッ
ションと共に、2013 年コングレスにて結果の報告を行なうことに同意した。
9.

出席している
出席している各国
している各国ナショナルオーソリティーからのレポート
各国ナショナルオーソリティーからのレポート（
ナショナルオーソリティーからのレポート（規則変更のためのサブミッ
規則変更のためのサブミッ

ションは含
ションは含まず）まず）文章によるレポート（Appendix 7 参照）が、オーストラリア、英国、香港、日本、マルタ、トルコ、
米国からあり、以下の議論が交わされた。
オーストラリア：

ナショナル選手権が国内で転戦され、今年のイベントは、アウディー

ハミルトンアイランドレースウィークの一環として開催された。
日本：

質問に対し、マーク・アーウィンは、もし 2 隻のボートが同一のデータを持って

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

いれば、例え一方のボートがボートのモディフィケーションによってそのデータを達成したとしても、2 艇のＴＣＣは同じになる、との回答を行なった。
口頭によるレポートの概要は以下の通り：
カナダ：

2012 年の証書保有艇数は、2011 年の 82 から 67 に落ち込んだ。原因の一つ

は、北米ＩＲＣ選手権が 2011 年にオンタリオ湖で行なわれたことによる。一般に、カナダ人オーナーは、ＩＲＣを好むが、ＰＨＲＦよりも大幅に費用が掛かることがマイナス要因だ。
フランス：

証書数の 12％の減少は、フランス経済の停滞が原因と考えられる。

ドイツ：

今年のドイツのＩＲＣフリートは減少を示した。大多数の証書保有艇は地中海をベースにしており、ドイツ国内ではＩＲＣレースは行なわれていない。
アイルランド： 他と同様、ボート数は減り、古い、小型のボートへと明らかにシフトしている。これらの内のいくつか（旧 1/4 トナー）は、彼らのＴＣＣに比して速いと思われる。
スウェーデン： スウェーデンは 2012 年にＯＲＣに逆戻りし、ＩＲＣ艇は非常に少ない。
タイ：

30 のエントリーを越える 6 つのイベントが開催された。また、香港とタイの間で、12 のアジアンイベントが行なわれた。昨年のプーケットキングスカップでは、76 艇がＩＲＣでレースを行なった。
ＵＡＥ：

経済の影響があるとは言え、昨年とほぼ同じ傾向であった。

10. ＩＲＣのＩＲＣの将来の
将来の方向性ＲＯＲＣレーティングオフィスを代表してマイク・アーウィンがプレゼンテーションを行った（Appendix 8）。テクニカルコミッティーの危惧は、新アプリケーションや新艇の数が減少している点であった。また、ＲＯＲＣレーティングオフィスが、主にＩＲＣの非ユーザーを対象にしたア
ンケートの主要な結果が報告された。最初の議論は、ＩＲＣイベントに参加するプロフェッショ
ナルセーラーの存在に憤慨しているケースが多くある点であった。
チェアマンは、コングレスに、次の質問を向けた：
1. 全てのボートにレーティングを与えるというＩＲＣフィロソフィーはまだ有効か？

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

2. ＨＰＲを脅威と見るかチャンスと見るか？
3. ＰＹ／ＰＨＲＦを脅威と見るかチャンスと見るか？
4. ＩＲＣを‘買い’の銘柄にするにはどうしたらよいか？
長い議論を経て、以下の点が明らかとなった。
・ＩＲＣの複雑さが増し、多くのセーラーにとって良く理解できないものとなっている。
・キールボートのレースは、一般に下降傾向にあり、この傾向の打破にまず目を向けなければならない。
・ＩＲＣはハイエンドのレーシングルールであるとの見方が根強い。よって、ＩＲＣは全てのボートのためのものである点を強調しなければならない。
・ＩＲＣは軽量艇（超軽量ではない）にも適していることを考慮するべきだ。
・ＨＰＲは脅威ではない。非常に軽量や過激なモダンレースボートを惹きつける可能性を持っている点は、ＩＲＣに利益となる。
・パフォーマンスハンディキャップシステムは、キールボートレースのスタートとして自然な選択であるので、ＩＲＣに対しても自然の恩恵を与える。ＩＲＣにとってチャンスである。
・長い議論の末、コングレスは、各ルールオーソリティーは、ＩＲＣのプロモートを積極的に行ない、その一環として、オーナーの希望を理解するために、可能で実践的であれば、アンケート
調査を行なうべきとの結論に達した。
・ＩＲＣレーティングオーソリティーは、世界中のＩＲＣを支持するのは当然であるが、唯一のプ
ロモーションの主体となるには非現実的で、負担が大き過ぎる。
ＩＲＣポリシーステアリンググループとの協議の結果、ＩＲＣテクニカルコミッティーは、年に１つか２つのイベントにしか参加しないボート向けに、制限付きＩＲＣ TCC（Limited Validity IRC
TCC）の発表を検討した。未だに多くの不明瞭点があるものの、2013 年度にＧＢＲでトライア
ルを行なう意味を認めるに十分な利益を生む可能性を持っているという結論に達した。このト

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

ライアルは、発表されたばかりだが、大方好意的な反応を得ている。もしトライアルが成功す
れば、ＬＶ ＴＣＣは将来的に、他の国でもローカルＩＲＣルールオーソリティーの下で紹介される。実用性と悪用の可能性に関する危惧が表明されたものの、コングレスは、大方、この発案を受け入れた。諸条件を含む詳細については、Appendix 10 を参照のこと。
コングレスは、ＲＯＲＣレーテインングオフィスがＲＹＡその他と協力し、ポーツマスヤードスティ
ックパフォーマンスハンディキャップをＧＢＲで復活させようとしていると報告を受けた。これの目的は、キールボートのレースへのより多くの参加を奨励し、ＩＲＣの使用もそれに伴い増加させるというものである。こうした流れの中では、今回の戦略には、ヨットクラブにＰＹとＩＲＣのデュアルスコアリングを使うことを奨励することも含まれており、それは一般的なフリートのクラス分けと異なるものである。これは、アイルランドで成功しているモデルと調和するものである。
コングレスは、また、ＲＯＲＣレーティングオフィスが、来冬季に地方への一連のツアーを計画していることの報告を受けた。これの意図は、地域の全てのクラブに一か所に集まってもらい、クラブ間の協調を強めてもらうことである。このような機会はまた、計画されているＰＹの改造
プロモーションにも利用される。
11. インターナショナルＩＲＣオーナーズ協会規約への変更プロポーザル
プロポーザルの受理はなし。
12. 大陸および国際地域選手権
報告なし。
13. ＩＲＣポリシーステアリンググループへのＩＩＯＡ代表の選出
マルコム・ラナルが圧倒的多数で選出された。
14. その他の議案
ヴォルカー・アンドレアが、大量のデータの入力が必要となる事態に陥る、異なるレースマネ
ージメントパッケージ間の互換の不足について言及した。バス・エドモンドは、ＧＢＲでは、主
要レース集計パッケージの開発は、セイリング・ソフトウェア・アライアンスというグループが共同管理しており、必要ならより詳しい内容を提供する旨の報告があった。

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

2012 年 10 月 14 日の会議
以下、英文議事録のまま。

1.
1.1

To discuss IRC submissions to ISAF.
Report on IRC submissions to the 2011 ISAF Conference.

The IRC submission to permit IRC International Measurers was accepted by the 2011 ISAF
Conference. It is hoped that a small number of IRC measurers will be appointed IMs at the ISAF
Conference in Dublin in November 2012. Further discussions were planned with the ISAF
International Measurers Sub-Committee towards the next round of appointments. It was notedthat the number of IRC IMs would however be limited in line with general IM policy.

1.2

IRC 2012 submissions.

There are no IRC submissions to ISAF this year.

2.

Discussion of submissions to ISAF relevant to IRC.

2.1

Offshore Special Regulations Submissions.

Congress discussed the most relevant among the submissions to ISAF Offshore Special
Regulations Committee. It was noted that in a number of cases, the ‘Chairman’s Submissions
were as a result of the capsize of RAMBLER in last year’s Fastnet Race. In some cases there
were parallel, but generally more onerous submissions from elsewhere.

No.

Title

Synopsis27-11

MandatoryTo

Requirement

1-12

for

requireComment
50mm

DeferredRecommendation
from

2011.

Reject.

deflection with 50N

Impractical. Working party

Lifeline to be ‘taut’.

load.

has done nothing.

Keel Inspections

Recommends regular

Concern was expressedNo

inspections of keels,at the undefined nature ofrecommendation.

particularly‘inspection’. This mightweldedkeels.

result in an impracticalunworkable regulation.

12-12

Escape hatches for

Requires boats withOver

prescriptive

andReject.

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

inverted yachts.

Age

Date

2015

unnecessary.

onwards in Cats 0
and 1 to have an
escape hatch.
13-12

High visibility colour

Requiresprescribedon monohulls.

coloured area on allOverprescriptive

andReject.

andReject.

unnecessary.

boats in Cats 0 and 1.
14-12

Grab

bags

For all boats requiresOver

prescriptive

mandatory and on

a grab bag to beunnecessary.

deck.

stowed on deck forCats 0, 1, 2,

7&

PLB Registration

15-12

Address

PLB

Good in principle, but

Defer for wider

reqistration

andinternationally complex.

consultation.

Reject in favour

requirement
OA

to

for

an

recordtheinformation.
8-12

Preventing

Requires fall arrest

Impractical

lifejacket and safety

style harnesses.

cumbersome.

harnesses

andof acceptance offromseparatepulling over head,reportfrom crotch strap
working party.

9-12

3.14.7

Proposes to permit

Concerns expressed on

Nocarbontherecommendation.

fibre

stanchions.

potential

cost

implications and why thechange was necessary.

10-12

3.29

Wil make DSC radios

DSC sensible and readily

Accept DSC. No

mandatory. Changes

available.

recommendation

requirements

expressed regarding theon

Installation changes.

changes.

Principle

Accept

as
by

ships

for
VHF

Concerns

installation

installation.
11-12

Mandatory Stability

Makes

compliance

Requirements.

with ISO 12217-2, orOrganising Authorities doamended

STIX/AVS, or ORC

not understand stability.

informal working

Stability

This does it for them.

party.

Probably very sensible,

Defer.

Index,

or

accepted.

SSS mandatory.
23-12

Rescue laser flares

Recommends

laser

Set

up

0
00
0
55
55

000
11110

5
15
1
55
11

JAPAN
SAILINGFEDERATION
財団法人

日 本 セ ー リ ン グ連 盟

aspersonal

equipment

flaresaspersonalcrew equipment.

but needs further work

Working Party toand definition. Andy Hillreportreported

2013.

positiveback

experience of their use.

2.2

ISAF Submissions.

Congress’s attention was drawn to three submissions which were potentially of relevance tokeelboat racing.

No.

Title

Synopsis041

Required Usage

Thatof ISAF Training

published ISAF OSRbook is unreviewed andResources.

training book be a

uproven.

Offshoremandatory

Training

requirement of OSR

theComment
recently

Recommendation

Inapppropriate.

The

Reject.

training courses.
116

RRS. New CaseA new case to defineFor

information.

Reject in favour– Rule 41 (c).

theCongress

expressedof a working party

meaning‘informationoffreelyavailable’.

the view that RRS 41

to

fully

was in need of fullRRS 41.

review.
117

RRS.

New

A new RRS Appendix

Developed

Appendix SY –

to

ISAF

Superyacht

differing racing needs

Committee

Racing Rules.

of superyachts.

Superyacht

Racing

Association.

Alreadytestedworks.

cater

for

the

jointly

Racing

and

by

Rules

and

the

Noted that superyachts
were defined as longer
than 30m as opposedto the commonly used
30.48m.

MJU

Approve.

reviewinIRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 1
IRC Endorsement
Process, Measurement, and Data Standards
Issue: January 2012. Detail Edits as left sidelined.

1.

PreambleAn ‘Endorsed’ IRC certificate is defined by IRC Rule 8.5 as:
An ENDORSED IRC certificate is one for which the data on the certificate has been audited andif necessary verified by measurement, or other methods in accordance with current publishedstandards.
The 2005 IRC Congress agreed that a set of common standards for the IRC Rating Authority and Rule
Authorities to apply when endorsing a boat’s IRC certificate should be developed and published.
Generally, IRC is a self-measurement system. There is thus no general requirement for an owner tohave his boat officially measured or weighed unless either he chooses to do so, or his Rule Authority(ie his local IRC body) and/or an Organising Authority for a race requires official measurement,
generally resulting in an Endorsed IRC certificate.
An Endorsed IRC certificate will carry the notation ENDORSED under the IRC Rating Authority stamp:

Within the guidelines below Rule Authorities are given some options for sources of data. This
recognises that circumstances vary from country to country, that some owners are prepared to expend
more time and effort than others, and that for instance weighing a large boat may be impractical. The
options offered cater for these while at the same time not generally compromising the validity of aboat’s data and hence her Endorsed certificate.
It is a fundamental prerequisite of this that responsibility for appointment and training of measurers
and quality of measurement data generally lies with each Rule Authority. Attention is drawn to the IRC
Measurement Manual available from the IRC website, www.ircrating.org. Additional material to aid
Rule Authorities and measurers is also available direct from the Rating Authority.

Min121013 (1) MJU

1

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
2.

Process

An owner wishing to have his certificate endorsed first contacts his local Rule Authority. The Rule
Authority carries responsibility for auditing the boat’s data file and for defining what, if any,
data is to be verified. In doing this, the data and measurement standards below shall be applied. Ifthese standards are not applied, then the Rating Authority must be advised and an Endorsed
certificate will not be issued.
On return of the data from the measurer, or other defined source, the Rule Authority will review thedata and confirm that it is satisfied that an Endorsed certificate can be issued. The data is thenforwarded to the Rating Authority accompanied by a request to issue an Endorsed certificate. Only
then will the Rating Authority issue an Endorsed certificate.
The Rating Authority reserves the right at its absolute discretion to refuse to issue an
Endorsed certificate if it is not satisfied in any respect with the data submitted by a boat
through her Rule Authority.
It is not permitted for any body to over stamp an unendorsed IRC certificate as Endorsed. IRC
Endorsed certificates are issued by the IRC Rating Authority only.

3.

Measuring Equipment

While measurement methods are generally beyond the scope of this, the following shall apply.
3.1

Load Cells

Load cells for single point lift weighing shall have a quoted accuracy of +/-0.2% of maximum capacity
or equivalent and discrimination of not less than 10 kg. ie, a 10 tonne load cell should have a quoted
accuracy of +/- 20 kg, and a 20 tonne cell, +/- 40 kg. Load cells shall be calibrated at least once peryear.
A load cell should not normally be used to weigh a boat weighing less than 15% of the maximum
capacity of the load cell, ie 1500 kg for a 10 tonne cell. Rule Authorities may waive this requirement on
an individual case basis.
Compression load cells should generally follow the above standards. It is however recognised andnoted that the ultimate accuracy of weighing on compression load cells is a function of the combined
accuracy of all the cells rather than the accuracy of each individual cell and also of the methodology
adopted. Rule Authorities are therefore advised to exercise care in approving compression load cells.
3.2

Linear Measurements

Tape measures and measuring rules built to CE category 2 or equivalent standards are acceptable.
Tape measures shall be steel, as required by CE category 2.

Min121013 (1) MJU

2

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
4.

Sources of Data

4.1

GeneralHull andAppendages

Rig

Sails

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

WeightHull andAppendages

Rig

Sails

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hull andAppendages

Rig

Sails

Registered Tonnage.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Weighing on crane built in Loadcell.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Weighing in a travel hoist by any means, including oncompression load cells, without the prior approval of
the Rating Authority.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Generally Acceptable
Measurement carried out by an authorised measurer
using equipment complying with defined standards.

WeightN/ASingle point weighing carried out by an authorised
measurer using a load cell complying with defined
standards.
If available, standard design data and light weightdefined by the Rating Authority.
Data supplied by an approved sail measurer.
Acceptable at the discretionof a Rule Authority
Weighing in a cradle on compression load cells carriedout by an authorised measurer using load cells
complying with defined standards.
Measurement carried out by a specially appointed
measurer or sail measurer.
Single point weighing or weighing in a cradle oncompression load cells carried out by a speciallyappointed measurer using load cells complying withdefined standards.
Weight derived from freeboards measured by anacceptable method, calculation and declaration by thenaval architect or other person authorised by the
Rating Authority.
ORCi DSPM minus measurement inventory. In theabsence of a measurement inventory, ORCi DSPM
minus 2%.
Data derived from an in date or recently expired ORCior other measurement certificate.
NOT acceptable

N/A

N/A
WeightOwner or manufacturer declaration.

4.2

One Designs Previously Approved by the Rating Authority

One designs previously approved as such by the Rating Authority may have their certificates endorsed
without further measurement on declaration by the owner that the boat holds and is in compliance withher one design class certificate.
5.

Retention of Endorsed Status

When a boat changes any data, to retain the Endorsed status of her certificate, the changed data shallbe verified by a method approved by the Rule Authority and included in paragraph 4.1 above.
Min121013 (1) MJU

3

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 2

Min121013 (1) MJU

4

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

Min121013 (1) MJU

5

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 3
Rule Notice 2012/02
Definition of Heavy Weather Jib
The definition within ISAF Offshore Special Regulations of Heavy Weather Jib has changed for 2012by deletion of the final phrase and without reef points.
By omission, these words have not been deleted from the IRC definition.
The IRC definition of Heavy Weather Jib is therefore amended with immediate effect to:

HWJ

Heavy weather jib. A headsail of area not greater than 13.5% foretriangle heightsquared.

Ends.

IRC Technical Committee
16 January 2012
IRC Notice 2012 01 Heavy Weather Jib Final GBR and FRA

Min121013 (1) MJU

6

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 4
Rule Notice 2012/02
Several Sailmakers have intentionally attempted to circumvent IRC rules 2.4 and 2.5 by developing
headsail foot shelf profiles that artificially reduce the headsail measurements, reducing the IRC rating
without a corresponding reduction in performance. To do this the curve of the foot is exaggerated tocreate a far larger foot shelf than required. This means that the measured tack point and clew point
are not extended, and therefore move up the luff and leech, artificially reducing the sail’s dimensions.
To avoid exploitation of ERS sail measurement rules, if the maximum offset between the edge of theheadsail foot and a straight line between the tack point and the clew point (foot offset - see diagram
below) is 6% of LP or greater, or if a headsail has a batten or battens adjacent to the foot, then thatmeasurement shall be provided.
If foot offset is greater than 7.5% of LP, it will be considered that IRC Rule 2.5 has been infringed. This
will result in an increase in Rig Factor to correspond to the artificial reduction in rating, plus a small
penalty.
This notice has immediate effect.
It is intended that IRC for 2013 will be drafted with an additional rule to control this development andprevent sailmakers from pursuing this loophole at owners’ expense into the future.

Clew Point

LP

Foot Offset

Jean Sans

Mike Urwin

IRC Technical Committee
9 May 2012

Min121013 (1) MJU

7

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 5
Report From The IRC Technical Committee
1.

IRC Activityst

The total number of boats issued with IRC certificates in 2005 to 2011 and to 31 August 2012 isshown below.
Certificate YearCountry
Great Britain
FranceItaly
Australia
IrelandUSA
TurkeyJapan
SpainNetherlands
GreeceHong Kong
Chile
CanadaThailandBelgium
Malta
Germany
UAE/Gulf States
South Africa
New Zealand
China
FinlandSingapore
IsraelRomania
Bulgaria
Uruguay
Malaysia
Colombia
SwedenPortugal
Philippines
Argentina
NorwayIceland
Croatia
Denmark
Switzerland
World & Other (<5)

Continent
EuropeEuropeEuropeOceania
EuropeN America
EuropeAsia
EuropeEuropeEuropeAsia
S America
N America
Asia
EuropeEuropeEuropeAfricaAfricaOceania
Asia
EuropeAsia
EuropeEuropeEuropeS America
Asia
S America
EuropeEuropeAsia
S America
EuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeN/ARegion
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
N/A
Totals:As % of previous year:

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

1878
904
763
527
389
549
260
1
934
58
0
76

1839
966
840
578
402
589
280
33
155
54
56
85

2043
924
931
570
429
610
292
89
164
152
109
94

2029
1074
962
528
455
611
327
122
165
162
101
120

1806
937
840
535
443
488
342
221
167
172
105
93

22
50
79
49
16
67
91
15
0

24
48
91
42
24
56
91
142
0

23
49
99
47
39
79
84
97
0

29
27

45
27

41
21

32
64
100
65
64
67
76
94
0
13
41
23

51
72
87
64
65
72
63
78
37
34
37
23

41
47
23

42
45
23

1766
975
905
544
423
464
360
258
159
146
117
93
0
60
80
74
66
53
68
55
55
40
40
29
35
18
39
45
21

28
101
12
37
8
14
15

37
56
13
27
9
12
20

20
74
7715
105.1

16
215
7347
95.2

1702
1016
846
525
386
380
363
276
169
138
104
97
89
82
77
76
62
56
53
49
46
46
37
35
34
32
29
27
22
21
19
14
14
13
11
10
10
8
6
86
7066
98.2

19

23

27

127
19
0

133
13
50

95
13
90

18

14

15

164
7131

125
6825
95.7

114
7340
107.5

37
23
13
24
16
13
16
17
3
49
7199
98.0

Endorsed
%
47
10
4
95
82
91
54
42
50
30
69
35
15
95
9
16
19
45
34
90
83
0
89
54
24
6
97
85
18
5
84
0
29
92
73
10
0
50
17

2011 to31/8/112012 to31/8/12

1675
933
657
367
393
358
276
263
159
133
95
75
40
82
23
75
51
55
18
32
29
31
36
30
30
32
27
1
12

1526
816
651
361
355
306
302
277
129
148
73
76
0
67
24
58
59
42
12
30
27
63
22
26
35
30
28
0
14
2
1
0
3
0
2
13
8
1
2
86
5675
91.8

18
13
7
1
10
10
6
9
6
113
6181

Between the 2010 and 2011 Certificate Years, there has been a further decrease in the number ofboats rated of 133 boats, or 1.8%. Noting again the continued poor state of the global economy during
Min121013 (1) MJU

8

IRC Congress Meeting 20122011, this is unsurprising. It is noteworthy however that against this trend, the French fleet has shown
some growth. Growth also continued in some of the newer IRC countries, notably CAN, JPN and ROM.
There is also one new country, CHI.
Overall, 43.7% (2010 44%) of boats held Endorsed certificates in 2011 with the number in eachcountry ranging from 0% to 100%.
st

For reference, the latest available data at 31 August 2012 is also shown. Care should be taken inreading this data, particularly for South countries which are only 3 months into their year. The key
element in this data is the continued falls in fleet numbers with overall a reduction from 6181 boats at
the end of August 2011 to 5675 boats at the end of August this year, a fall of 8.2%. Counter to this,some growth has been seen in CHN, JPN, NED and TUR.
At the end of 2011, 28 countries on all 6 continents had fleets of 25 boats or more, satisfying therequirements of ISAF Regulation 12.2(e)(i). At the end of August 20121, 23 countries had achieved
this level with the likelihood of a further 5 by the end of the year. At the end of 2012, 39 countries had
fleets of 5 or more boats.
st

The table below shows the comparison of the numbers of boats rated at 31 August for the period
2006, to 2012:

TurkeyNetherlands
Japan
Malta
Israel
Iceland
Colombia

212
50
14
41
24
14

237
129
81
41
19
15

249
134
117
57
19
14

236
153
208
57
20
12

Boats at31/08/10
31
261
136
252
58
27
13

Croatia
Malaysia
Bulgaria

0
4
0
58
10
39
0
36

1
23
1
85
48
56
21
142

8
13
38
65
19
27
39
49

15
11
39
70
14
27
33
50

16
13
35
69
22
7
32
33

Country
China

Hong Kong
Thailand
Argentina
Uruguay
New Zealand
Romania

Boats at31/08/06

Boats at31/08/07

Boats at31/08/08

Boats at31/08/09

South Africa
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland
Australia
Italy
UAE
Denmark

37
0
21
2
328
604
21

91
13
45
10
285
685
56

53
1
25
18
357
766
26

47
7
29
15
341
624
12

NorwayGermany
Portugal
Finland
CanadaBelgium
SwedenGreece

0
17
130
1
25
80
1
43

0
38
85
3
22
89
3
101

8
51
100
13
30
95
30
98

8
57
56
33
49
80
28

Min121013 (1) MJU

100

9

0
31
8
18
2
344
711
10
17
14
50
23
38
59
66
35
108

Boats at31/08/11
31
276
133
263
51
30
10
6
12
27
75
23
1
1
29
32
32
7
30
6
367
657
18
9
10
55
13
36
82
75
18
95

Boats at31/08/12
63
302
148
277
59
35
13
2
8
14
28
76
24
0
0
27
30
30
3
26
2
361
651
12
1
2
42
0
22
67
58
1
73

Change31/08/11 to
31/08/12
Comment
32
26
15
14
8
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-13
-13
-14
-15
-17
-17
-22

South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

Country
Spain
IrelandChile
USA
FranceGreat Britain
World & Other (<5)
Totals:Boats at31/08/06
141
396

Boats at31/08/07
154
415

Boats at31/08/08
156
447

Boats at31/08/09
146
433

Boats at31/08/10
151
409

562
829
1785
56
5581

574
858
1952
36
6414
14.9

584
980
1987
51
6724
4.8

449
860
1749
138
6206
-7.7

432
889
1723
111

Boats at31/08/11
159
393
40
358
933
1675
113

Boats at31/08/12
129
355
0
306
816
1526
86

6254
0.8

6181
-1.2

5675
-8.2

Change31/08/11 to
31/08/12
Comment
-30
-38
-40
-52
-117
-149
-27
-506

South

While we believe that the decline in certificate numbers in established IRC countries continues toreflect the current economic conditions, the IRC Technical Committee is concerned at the significant
and apparently accelerating continuing fall in the numbers of rated boats.
We are however slightly encouraged by the growth during 2012 in generally newer IRC countries, CHI,
JPN and NED. It is also noteworthy that, against other trends, the number of certificated boats in
Turkey has again increased during 2012.
In overall summary, the IRC Technical Committee expresses its concern at the declining number ofboats rated under IRC during 2011 and particularly the steep decline so far in 2012.

2.

Measurement

No international measurer seminars have been held during 2012.
The deferred IRC submission to ISAF to permit IRC measurers to become ISAF International
Measurers was accepted at the 2011 ISAF Conference. It is anticipated that a small number of senior
IRC measurers will apply for International Measurer status at this year’s ISAF Conference.
The IRC Technical Committee does not foresee any difficulty associated with changes to the revised
version of the Equipment Rules of Sailing for 2013 – 2016. We intend to continue to work with the
ERS Working Party to further develop ERS into the future.

3.

Technical

The further changes to the IRC treatment of smaller lighter boats forecast last year were implemented
for 2012. Further work during 2012 suggests that significant further changes are unlikely for 2013.
The Technical Committee has been working this year on a wide ranging. Most significant are probably
the changes to headsail and other sail measurement rules necessitated by the ‘inventive’ solutions
developed by some sailmakers during 2012. Much of the remainder is detail issues which will only
result in minor changes to IRC Rules and/or rating calculations. Much of this work has been conductedby E-Mail with a formal 2 day meeting in Paris in July.

Min121013 (1) MJU

10

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 6
Fleet Statistics 2011
The table below gives summary fleet statistic for IRC fleets in 2011.

Fleet
Country
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria
CanadaChile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Denmark
FinlandFranceGermany
Great Britain
GreeceHong Kong
Iceland
IrelandIsraelItaly
Japan
Malaysia
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPhilippines
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
ThailandTurkeyUAE/Gulf
StatesUruguay
USA

LH

LH

< 9m

9 - 12m

Certificate Year 2011
LH
LH
12 - 15m

> 15m

New
applications

LH

TCC

13
525
76
29
82
89
46
21
10
8
37
1016
56
1702
104
97
10
386
34
846
276
22
62
138
46
11
14
14
32
35
49
169
19
6
77
363

No.
2
20
8
8
3
22
13
1
1
0
0
139
0
375
19
15
5
117
8
36
39
4
1
6
3
0
3
3
8
16
7
19
0
1
7
39

%
15.4
3.8
10.5
27.6
3.7
24.7
28.3
4.8
10.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
0.0
22.0
18.3
15.5
50.0
30.3
23.5
4.3
14.1
18.2
1.6
4.3
6.5
0.0
21.4
21.4
25.0
45.7
14.3
11.2
0.0
16.7
9.1
10.7

No.
9
299
39
9
55
47
32
11
2
5
15
636
4
989
49
35
5
237
15
463
191
9
21
66
13
4
8
7
16
8
22
94
9
1
26
178

%
69.2
57.0
51.3
31.0
67.1
52.8
69.6
52.4
20.0
62.5
40.5
62.6
7.1
58.1
47.1
36.1
50.0
61.4
44.1
54.7
69.2
40.9
33.9
47.8
28.3
36.4
57.1
50.0
50.0
22.9
44.9
55.6
47.4
16.7
33.8
49.0

No.
0
154
26
9
22
19
0
9
6
3
21
167
29
269
28
26
0
29
9
254
42
5
32
51
16
7
2
3
6
10
16
33
5
1
34
125

%
0.0
29.3
34.2
31.0
26.8
21.3
0.0
42.9
60.0
37.5
56.8
16.4
51.8
15.8
26.9
26.8
0.0
7.5
26.5
30.0
15.2
22.7
51.6
37.0
34.8
63.6
14.3
21.4
18.8
28.6
32.7
19.5
26.3
16.7
44.2
34.4

No.
2
52
3
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
74
23
69
8
21
0
3
2
93
4
4
8
15
14
0
1
1
2
1
4
23
5
3
10
21

%
15.4
9.9
3.9
10.3
2.4
1.1
2.2
0.0
10.0
0.0
2.7
7.3
41.1
4.1
7.7
21.6
0.0
0.8
5.9
11.0
1.4
18.2
12.9
10.9
30.4
0.0
7.1
7.1
6.3
2.9
8.2
13.6
26.3
50.0
13.0
5.8

No.
0
57
14
4
18
85
17
21
3
0
5
225
13
189
8
11
0
14
8
153
43
2
12
33
6
2
1
1
11
5
5
39
6
4
14
84

%
0.0
10.9
18.4
13.8
22.0
95.5
37.0
100.0
30.0
0.0
13.5
22.1
23.2
11.1
7.7
11.3
0.0
3.6
23.5
18.1
15.6
9.1
19.4
23.9
13.0
18.2
7.1
7.1
34.4
14.3
10.2
23.1
31.6
66.7
18.2
23.1

Average
10.64
11.99
11.32
11.11
11.23
10.5
11.03
11.63
13.08
15.47
11.93
11.23
14.80
10.60
11.48
12.68
8.96
9.75
11.00
12.19
10.38
11.68
13.20
12.54
13.63
12.53
10.97
10.96
10.50
10.35
11.37
12.22
12.97
11.51
12.33
11.70

Average
1.003
1.090
1.039
0.993
1.041
1.00
1.046
0.988
1.164
1.283
1.070
1.026
1.175
0.982
1.032
1.103
0.956
0.954
1.006
1.057
1.037
1.048
1.072
1.071
1.145
1.126
1.037
1.024
0.939
1.035
1.059
1.043
1.133
1.055
1.026
1.014

53

17

32.1

25

47.2

9

17.0

2

3.8

4

7.5

9.95

0.994

27
380

10
1

37.0
0.3

14
125

51.9
32.9

3
172

11.1
45.3

0
82

0.0
21.6

5
56

18.5
14.7

9.18
13.68

0.929
1.146

Within this, average length across the whole fleet can be shown to be 11.42m, a marginal decreaseover 2010’s 11.48m, and average TCC 1.031, just 0.003 higher than 2010. The lowest rated boat in2011 (a 1985 one off rated without spinnakers in Romania) had a TCC of 0.711. The highest rated
boat in 2011 (the 214’ superyacht HETAIROS) had a TCC of 2.056.

Min121013 (1) MJU

11

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Salient points to note then include:•

39 countries had fleets of 5 or more boats.

•

The country with both the lowest average LH and TCC is Uruguay.

•

The country with the highest average LH is Germany.

•

The country with the highest average TCC is Denmark. Noting the small total size of theDanish fleet, this may not be statistically significant.

•5 countries (DEN, FIN, GER, NOR, SWE) had no boats with LH less than 9m. A further 10
countries (AUS, CAN, COL, CRO, ITA, MLT, NED, NZL, THA, USA,) had 10% or less of
their fleets with LH less than 9m.

•

2 countries (SIN, ISL) had more than 40% of their fleets with LH less than 9m.

•

8 countries (GER, HKG, MAS, NZL, SWE, SWI, USA) had more than 15% of their fleet
with LH greater than 15m.

•

In 7 countries (CHI, CHN, COL, CRO, ROM, SWE, SWI) more than 30% of all applications
were new applications.

•

In 2011, 16.9% of all applications were new application. This compares with 19.4% in
2010.

•

While this fall in new applications is probably related in part at least to the worldwide
economic situation, the IRC Technical Committee is concerned at this reduction.

Min121013 (1) MJU

12

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
The table below gives fleet statistic for the age of IRC boats in 2012.

No. ofBoats

Country
Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria
CanadaChina
Croatia
FinlandFranceGermany
Great Britain
GreeceHong Kong
Iceland
IrelandIsraelItaly
Japan
Malaysia
Malta
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Romania
RussiaSingapore
South Africa
Spain
ThailandTurkey
UAE
USA
All>20 years

15 - 20 years

10 - 15 years

5 - 10 years

0 - 5 years

0 - 10 years

Age Date<1993

Age Date
1993 - 1997

Age Date1998 - 2002

Age Date2003 - 2007

Age Date2008 - 2012

Age Date2003 - 2012

361
58
28
67
63
8
22
816
42
1526
73
76
13
355
35
651
277
14
59
148
34
28
30
8
26
29
129
24
302
12
306
5620

%

%

%

%

%

%

17.7
32.8
28.6
37.3
0.0
0.0
9.1
18.8
21.4
36.5
26.0
27.6
15.4
38.9
11.4
16.4
17.3
42.9
6.8
16.2
58.8
32.1
23.3
25.0
26.9
44.8
27.9
37.5
14.6
8.3
22.5
25.4

8.0
6.9
0.0
10.4
0.0
0.0
9.1
6.5
7.1
9.0
21.9
7.9
38.5
7.6
5.7
6.1
27.4
7.1
10.2
10.1
5.9
10.7
6.7
12.5
3.8
13.8
7.0
8.3
7.6
0.0
9.8
9.0

16.3
10.3
3.6
7.5
0.0
0.0
13.6
14.3
4.8
16.0
16.4
11.8
7.7
18.9
22.9
13.4
17.7
14.3
15.3
15.5
8.8
7.1
6.7
12.5
0.0
6.9
23.3
4.2
12.6
33.3
16.7
14.9

28.8
24.1
28.6
23.9
14.3
12.5
22.7
25.4
21.4
20.4
21.9
22.4
15.4
23.1
22.9
37.2
18.1
21.4
32.2
27.7
14.7
28.6
13.3
12.5
11.5
10.3
28.7
25.0
29.8
33.3
26.8
25.0

29.1
25.9
39.3
20.9
85.7
87.5
45.5
35.0
45.2
18.2
13.7
30.3
23.1
11.5
37.1
26.9
19.5
14.3
35.6
30.4
11.8
21.4
50.0
37.5
57.7
24.1
13.2
25.0
35.4
25.0
24.2
25.7

57.9
50.0
67.9
44.8
100.0
100.0
68.2
60.4
66.7
38.5
35.6
52.6
38.5
34.6
60.0
64.1
37.5
35.7
67.8
58.1
26.5
50.0
63.3
50.0
69.2
34.5
41.9
50.0
65.2
58.3
51.0
50.7

Some points to note include:•

Overall, in 2012, 50.7% (2011 52.5%, 2010 53.9%) of boats are less than 10 years old.
This fall is considered to be significant. Within this, the percentage of boats 5 – 10 years
old has risen to 25% in 2012 from 22.5% in 2011 while the percentage of boats 0 – 5
years old has fallen to 25.7% in 2012 from 28.9% in 2011.

•23.9% (2011 22.5%, 2010 22.2% of boats are 10 – 20 years old, and 25.4% (2011 25.0%,
2010 23.8%) are more than 20 years old.

•

The above both suggest that the IRC fleet is aging.

•

The two original CHS (from which IRC was developed) fleets, GBR and FRA continue toshow very different trends. 36.5% of GBR boats are more than 20 years old while in FRA
this is just 18.8%. 60.4% of FRA boats are less than 10 years old while in GBR this is just
38.5%.

Min121013 (1) MJU

13

IRC Congress Meeting 2012•

New fleet New Caledonia has the ‘oldest’ fleet with 58.8% of boats more than 20 years old.

•

Ignoring the special case of CHN, SIN with 57.7% of boats less than 5 years old again has
the ‘newest’ fleet.

•

IRL with 11.5% (2011 14.2%) has the fewest boats less than 5 years old.

•

There is a noticeable trend for countries suffering the deepest economic gloom (IRL, ESP,
GRE) to have few new boats in 2012. The apparent anomaly against this of ITA may be
explained by the high proportion of ‘foreign’ boats based in Italy.

Overall, the IRC Technical Committee is concerned at the reductions in both the number of new
applications and also the fall in the number of new boats.
The IRC Technical Committee again hesitates to draw further conclusions from this data except tonote that at face value a wide range of boat sizes continues to use IRC, and that IRC Rule 2.2 ‘The
IRC concept protects the existing IRC fleet’ is demonstrably being satisfied.

Min121013 (1) MJU

14

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 7
Reports From National IRC Owners Associations and IRC Rule Authorities
1.

Australia.

Issues not subject to submission.
•

Processing Ratings Remotely

The 2010 US Sailing submission for Rule Authorities to be able to process their own ratings should be
revisited as a high priority. The ORC provides this facility, and in turn countries can provide their boatowners high levels of service for ORCi certificates. It is likely that HPR will do the same. The Rating
Authorities should look to provide a system for qualifying Rule Authorities to use a similar facility for
IRC so that it may grow beyond the centrally controlled and limited system that it currently is. Thisshould be escalated to a priority•

Notes for Race Organisers

The measurement checking guidance on page 6 of the 2012 Year Book should be retained.
•

Treatment of 30 to 45 Foot Race Boats

Australian boat owners would like the IRC Technical Committee to raise the level of priority on
addressing the perceived inequity in the handling of fast race boats in the 30 to 45 foot range. This is
not only fast light heavy 40s competing against heavy and slower 40s, but also the difficulties in rating
a light fast 40 against a light fast 52 where the 52 seems to be invariably favoured.

2.

Great Britain & Northern Ireland (GBR)

Comments
The number of IRC rated boats at the end of 2011 had fallen further from 2010 (1702, cf 1766).
A comparison of numbers between Aug 2012 and Aug 2011 shows a reduction of 149 boats(8.9%). The economic climate plainly has a part to play, but this is considered to be verysignificant.



In response, The GR IRC Rule Authority will be undertaking a series of visits to GBR regions
to promote IRC and to encourage clubs to adopt and use the rule.



The GBR IRC Committee supports the IRC Rating Authority’s decision to introduce ‘Limited
Validity IRC TCCs’ in GBR in 2013 on a trial basis.



The GBR IRC Rule Authority is also working closely with the RYA to develop a national
strategy for cruiser racing in GBR.

The GBR IRC Rule Authority conducted a survey over the winter aimed at finding out more
about why many owners are reluctant to use IRC. The primary outcome of this is that in the
majority of cases owners have multiple reasons for not using IRC. While cost of certification isfrequently mentioned, on it own, this does not appear to be a significant disincentive. A
summary of the findings follows as an addendum to this report.



Difficulty in finding crew also appears to be a growing problem.

The GBR IRC Committee also noted that the perception of IRC being a high-level rule isincreasingly deterring club level owners.

Min121013 (1) MJU

15

IRC Congress Meeting 2012


Again, a very wide range of different boat types, sizes and ages has been reported as winningraces during 2012.

Four IRC regional championships and a national championship were successfully held in GBR
in 2012.

For the first time a ‘small boat’ championship was held for boats with TCCs below 0.950 which
are often excluded by their low TCCs from competing in other events. The event was a great
success. There are now clubs competing to repeat the event in 2013!

IRC Technical Committee Submissions
The GBR IRC Committee supports all the IRC Technical Committee submissions for changes to IRC
Rules for 2013.
GBR Submissions to Congress
There are no submissions from GBR to the IRC Congress.
Addendum
GBR IRC Surveys 2012 - Summary
Two on-line surveys have been held, one aimed at owners not currently using IRC and the second atclubs, to explore cost sensitivity and other issues related to the reasons why some owners and clubs
are reluctant to use IRC.
We are grateful to both Ocean Safety for sponsoring the owners survey and to the Island Sailing Clubfor assisting significantly in publicising the owners survey.
A good response has been received to both surveys with it is believed significant responses from theprimary target audiences.
The primary conclusions drawn are that:•

The adoption and use of IRC is a complex issue, and is far from solely a cost issue withthe majority of respondents having multiple reasons for not using IRC.

•

Certification cost on its own does not appear to be a significant disincentive. Reduction incertification costs would not produce a commensurate increase in the number of certifiedboats.

•

There is no evidence of a linkage between boat size and resistance to fees. No grounds
can be seen to reduce fees for smaller boats at the expense of higher fees for larger
boats.

•

A significant number of owners do not see the justification for revalidation fees at all or
consider that they should be reduced.

•

For a significant percentage of boats and clubs, PY/local handicap systems are entirely
satisfactory.

•

There appears to be room for expansion of IRC in clubs currently running a combinationof IRC and PY/local handicap.

•

There are apparently many owners who have misunderstood IRC rules and principles.

Min121013 (1) MJU

16

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
As a result of these surveys, various actions are planned including detail changes to the IRC website,
efforts to publically dispel common misunderstandings, and development of a strategy to take IRC toclubs.
5.

Conclusions

These two surveys have been successful. We have I believe generally reached our target audiences
and have learnt a significant amount.
The fundamental conclusions drawn are:
5.1

The adoption and use of IRC is a complex issue and is far from solely a cost issue.

5.2

The majority of respondents had multiple reasons for not using IRC.

5.3

Noting the cruising nature of the majority of the boats that are considered by their owners to be
uncompetitive, and also that the majority of these owners had additional reasons for not using
IRC, we should accept that there are some designs and owners that we will never attract.
This does not of course mean that we should not endeavour to improve IRC’s treatment of more
fundamentally cruising oriented boats.

5.4

While certification cost is mentioned repeatedly, on its own it does not appear to be a significant
disincentive.

5.5

Reducing fees by 25% would not produce a comparable increase in the number of certifiedboats.

5.6

There is no evidence of a linkage between boat size and resistance to fees.

5.7

No grounds can be seen to reduce fees for smaller boats at the expense of higher fees forlarger boats.

5.8

There is less comment about new application fees than there is about revalidation fees. A
significant number of owners do not see the justification for these latter at all or consider thatthey should be reduced.

5.9

Associated costs are a significant disincentive.

5.10 There are apparently many owners who have misunderstood IRC rules and principles.
5.11 ‘Professional’ crews are resented in a number of cases.
5.12 For a significant percentage of boats and clubs, PY/local handicap systems are entirely
satisfactory.
5.13 Single and double handed racing appears to be a measureable element of the sport.
5.14 The benefit to boats of being able to use their IRC certificates at open events would appear
from the above to be significant.
5.15 There appears to be room for expansion of IRC in clubs currently running a combination of IRC
and PY/local handicap. Care will be needed in exploring this.
6.

Actions

6.1

Add a ‘New to IRC’ section to the websites. [Note: Done.]

Min121013 (1) MJU

17

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
6.2

Add a ‘Clubs new to IRC’ section to the websites.

6.3

Consider re-balancing new application fees and revalidation fees. It is accepted that this will bedifficult and quite possibly impossible.

6.4

Produce editorial to address and as appropriate dispel the common comments andmisconceptions, particularly that boats need to be stripped of fitout to successfully compete
under IRC.

6.5

Work with the yachting press, perhaps Yachting World, to publicise our findings and the editorial
resulting from 6.1.

6.6

Produce editorial to better define the benefits to both owners and clubs of using IRC.

6.7

Consider (again!) the possibility of introducing limited validity certificates valid for only aparticular race or regatta.

6.8

Develop a strategy to take IRC to clubs with the potential to adopt or increase their use of IRC.
This will almost certainly include a series of visits and lectures. Review and development of thecurrent ‘IRC Incentives’ should also be included.

6.9

Encourage clubs to host racing and regattas for low rating boats.

Mike Urwin.
29 August 2012.

3.

Hong Kong.

IRC Numbers continue to be stable in HK. There continues to be a consolidation into two distinct size
bands. Those that fall in between 28-38ft in length and rate in the region of-0.990 -1.080 and thosethat fall in the 38-50ft range and rate in the region 1.100 – 1.100. This has been at the expense of thelarger 50ft+ yachts, though we still do have some large racers based locally. There are several
Offshore races organised through the year that continue to attract the large boats to participate.
There does seem to be a “churn” of boats with new boats coming in to replace owners earlier boats,
however not all of the old boats remain in the fleet. This is as much that the boats leave HK as it is
new owners that have little interest in racing be it IRC or local PY systems.
We appear to be quite active with a number of trial certificates being run and amendments made. The
purpose usually being to fine tune ratings.
On the whole most owners are generally happy with IRC, certainly more so than any other local
handicapping that is available. That said there continues to be the impression that some types of boat
are favoured more than others under IRC. However most races & regatta’s run continue to be tightly
contested, with a number of boats capable of taking podium positions.
I am not expecting to see any noticeable growth in the fleet going forward. Marina space in HK is
extremely limited with little room for growth, that will likely constrain the number of new entrants. Thereseems to be little expansion of Marina’s being planned so until there is a significant upswell in berthavailability the current situation looks set to continue.

Min121013 (1) MJU

18

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
4.

JAPAN, Haru-hiko Kaku.

Overview:thThis is our 7 season of IRC in Japan. With a total number of certificates around 300, we saw small
increase from 2011.
Most major domestic events are now using IRC rating.
We would like to focus more on Asian circuit sort of events in the future.
Question:
We have queries from the owner’s association.
During this season, some owners questioned how modification to a boat affects its TCC.
This came after the event where a boat with rig modification won and many competitors thought they
had no chance to beat that boat.
Question is, when a boat carried out some modifications, whether that boat has the same TCC with aboat having exactly the same configuration but rated as a different design.
In another word, when the modification is evaluated, is it exactly the same process carried out as if themodified boat is a whole new design?
It seems parameters of the modification would be systematically applied in the formula to derive new
TCC without reconsidering new configuration.
For example, there is a boat that replaced the mast with 10% taller one. The boat has a longer P andthen the sail area may be bigger. TCC can be calculated according to these physical changes.
However, this modification may give extra advantage over non-modified boat.
So we would like to ask how modifications are assessed and make sure there is no oversight in thesystem to cause inadequate consequences.

5.

MALTA, Godwin Zammit.

IRC Report 2011 – RMYC MALTA
RacingThere was little change in the RMYC fleet in 2012.
Numbers remain stable with around 57 boats rated to date and a few more certificates likely to berequested particularly for the Rolex Middle Sea Race.
The composition of the fleet remains largely the same, mostly modern production boats within the 10 –15 metre length band and a couple of all out racers. Few new boats appeared this year.
As in previous years despite a relatively large fleet of rated boats for our small population, the numberof boats that race regularly is less than one would wish for. The reasons for this are varied and include
the relatively large number of events held when most owners only find time to enter a few of them,
shortage of good crew and other competing interests.
Of some concern is the reduction in participation from the more cruiser oriented boats. These had
been enticed to race in recent years in a dedicated cruiser class limited to furling headsails andasymmetric spinnakers but interest here seems to be waning.
The programme which runs from March to December includes local coastal races, weekend regattas
and short offshore races to destinations in nearby Sicily all run under IRC. Two offshore international
Min121013 (1) MJU

19

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
races the Malta- Syracuse race and the 606 mile Rolex Middle Sea Race include both IRC and ORC
thCategories. The Rolex Middle Sea Race is due to start on the 20 October with 80 entries confirmed.
In this race almost all the boats are expected to enter the IRC Category with a significant number ofboats entering both categories. Dual scoring these races attracts entries that normally race undereither of the two rating systems while enticing them to enter in the other as well
Malta IRC 2012 - Comments and proposals:
This year I have no proposals to make to the Congress but can make some comments about thosethat have been made and about the IRC in general.
Proposed changes to Rules
Having reviewed the proposals for changes we generally support the position of the IRC TechnicalCommittee.
Particularly the proposal to limit crew changes between races of a regatta or a series will create
difficulties for many owners already finding it hard to find crew. It seems more sensible to leave thecurrent position as the default while it is still possible for organisers of more competitive events toapply more stringent limitations.
Design trends - Headsails and Spinnakers
As design evolves the IRC rule is expected to respond to new trends.
One such trend is the shift from the large overlapping headsails on older designs to non-overlappingjibs which seem to be more efficient and which are becoming practically the norm on newer boats.
Similarly, on newer designs symmetric spinnakers on poles seem are increasingly being replaced byasymmetric spinnakers which are becoming more efficient and capable of being used quite deep
downwind.
As new trends develop and become more efficient the Rating rule should review its treatment of theirrelative performances to maintain equitability. I am sure that the Technical Committee is fully aware ofthese developments and gives these issues due consideration in its regular review.
IRC Development
Equitability
While IRC should continue to avoid encouraging the development of unsafe boats it should remain
primarily a rating rule whose purpose is to rate the speed of boats equitably. Stability and safety arealso taken care of by the Offshore Special Regulations to be applied by Organising Authorities
according to the type of event.
It should not discourage innovation treating it cautiously and conservatively until its effect is better
understood but fairly while maintaining the competitiveness of the existing fleet.
The rule should not deal preferentially with any particular class. While ideally boats that are too
dissimilar should not be raced against each other in many events large fast boats are scored against
the smaller boats for the overall prizes.
Multiple TCC’s
IRC is a single number system which rates boats on the basis of their overall performance. Inevitably
when boats with differing performance characteristics are racing together, the type of course andweather conditions can have a significant effect on results. Offshore, the weather is always relevant
and this has to be accepted as part of the nature of the sport. In inshore races it is possible to set
Min121013 (1) MJU

20

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
courses that have a component of all points of sailing to reflect the overall nature of the rating.
However windward-leeward courses will remain popular and it might be possible to have a second
TCC for windward-leeward courses which could be produced to take into account the performance ofparticular boats on these courses and result in more equitable scoring.
In the past triple ratings for different wind bands have also been suggested but in practice this mightprove difficult to adopt putting race committees in a position where they have to select the right windband in possibly variable wind conditions where such a selection would influence results.
Limited validity certificates
The idea of limited validity certificates which has been suggested could be useful in cases where an
owner wishes to race in a particular event with a different configuration and revert back to the previous
one for later events. This occurs locally in summer when owners have their boats set up for cruisingand are reluctant to race because of the cost of amending their certificate twice.
Championships
Regarding the running of championships it seems highly unlikely that a truly ‘World’ championshipcould be held for the type of boats that compose the majority of IRC fleets worldwide. Whenever
keelboat championships have been held, even at the most competitive level, the participation wasinternational representing a broad geographical area but still relatively regional rather than worldwide.

Godwin Zammit
Commodore RMYC
IRC representative, Malta.

Min121013 (1) MJU

21

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
6.

NETHERLANDS.

In 2012 after 2 years of decreasing numbers we see a small increase in IRC certificates in Holland,
now 153 against 139 last year.

Meetbrieven
200
180
160
140

aantal120

IMS (ORCi)
IRC

100

ORC Club

80
60
40
20
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

The main reason for this increase is the introduction of a new shorthanded competition in IRC.
The three main events in Holland showed about the same numbers of competitors as last year in IRC,
we lost some in IRC 1 and we gained in IRC2 and 3 , probably due to economical reasons.
In Holland we race both under IRC and ORC ,in the north more ORC and the south of Holland wehave more IRC boats. Also the IRC competition is considered to be higher level, because of the moreinternational orientated boats which are also competing in for example the BDCC and Fastnet.
For Holland there is a great need to combine the two systems in one new rule, to avoid this mixed
situation we have now for several years and seem to give a stronger discussion in Holland every year.
So therefore we strongly advice to support the efforts for a new combined rating rule.
There are no submissions from the Netherlands to the IRC Congress this year.

7.

TURKEY, Alıcan Turalı, Turkısh Offshore Racıng Club.

Number of yachts on December 31 2011:
Number of boats on August 31 2012:
Number of new boats:
Number of boats below 10 meters:
Number of boats 10-12 meters:
Number of boats 12-15 meters:
Number of boats above 15 meters:
Percentage of endorsed boats:
Min121013 (1) MJU

2010
48
93
94
78
14
63%
22

368
317
2011
38
99
100
71
16
66%

2012
84
100
106
83
19
65%

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…): NO OTHER RULES.
•

2012 was again an active year of sail racing in Turkey with 84 new yachts.

•

IRC Rule is the sole rating rule represented by TORC as the Rule Authority since 1995.

•

The Turkish Offshore Racing Club Trophy, which is the most prestigious among sailors in
Turkey, consists of 41 races ( a mix of up and down wind competition and geographicalcourses ) from March to December . The attendancy varied from 40 to 70 in 4 IRC classes,
classifed solely by TCC factor.
Istanbul Sailing Club has organised 11 races at the Sea of Marmara with participation of 5060 yachts.

••

Double handled regattas were realized fourth time this year by TORC and BAYK (Bodrum
Offshore Racing Club) and won critical acclaim among the sailing community and shall be
continued .

•Marmara Sailing Club and Marina Dragos Yacht Club’s Joint Trophy is an organisation whereorganiser clubs have assigned one or more races in their program thereto, and this has now
successfully settled. In 2012, it consisted of 3 races with participation of 30-35 boats.

•

The Turkish Navy Cup Regatta, this year ran the 41th edition , with a fleet of 68 boats,
starting from Bosphorus/Istanbul and finishing at Cesme/Izmir 270 nm, non stop.

•In other venues, namely Cesme/Izmir, Bodrum, Gocek and Marmaris racing scene was also
very active . With the initiatives of Bodrum and Marmaris clubs who lead successful
WinterTrophies covering 14-21 races in 7-8 weekend events from January to May , race
season is now over 12 months in southern Turkey.

•

Marmaris International Race Week by end of October and Loryma Summer Cup by end of
August, both organized by Marmaris International Yacht Club(MIYC) with TORC support forrace management are two major events . Marmaris Week celebrates this year its 23.
anniversary and will attract more than 1200 sailors in 160 boats from 23 different countries, 25boats still on waiting list.. MIYC in 2010 also started a winter trophy and participation is
gradually increasing, currently around 25-30 yachts completing 10-12 races. They alsoorganize the Channel Regatta jointly with Rhodes Yacht Club since 7 years.

•

Göcek Yacht Club is continuing with May Göcek Regatta (50 yachts) and in November
Autumn regattas with 50 yachts.

•

All those venues are supported by TORC/UNCL trained measurers.

•

In 2011 number of endorsed yachts increased considerably to 65 % of the certificates.

8.

USA.
•
•

Number of boats on December 31, 2011
Number of boats on August 31, 2012

401
319

•
•
•
•
•
•

Number of new boats
Number of boats below 10 meters
Number of boats between 10 and 12 m
Number of boats between 12 and 15 m
Number of boats above 15 m
Percentage of endorsed boats

2010
69
24
154
203
97
90%

Min121013 (1) MJU

23

2011
67
9
124
178
90
91%

2012 (to Aug 31)
56
7
85
162
65
88%

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Additional info:- IRC remains the measurement rule used in the most events in the US- Strongest presence continues in the Northeast- More events are accepting standard certificates

Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Valid
Certs
624
578
592
492
478
401
350 (est.)% Chg from
Prior Year
-7
+2
Bermuda year but economic situation likely held numbers down
-17 Non Bermuda year
-3
Bermuda year but economic pressure continue-16 Non Bermuda year
-13
Bermuda year; continued economic pressure and loss of mostof the Great Lakes IRC fleet : Port Huron - Mac Race dropped
both IRC and ORR and went to PHRF

Major IRC Events:
Ft. Lauderdale to Key West Race - January
Key West Race Week - January
Pineapple Cup Montego Bay Race - February (alternating years)
Fort Lauderdale to Charleston Race - April
Charleston Race Week - April
American YC Spring Series - April/May
Storm Trysail Block Island Race - May
New York YC Annual Regatta - June
Newport to Bermuda Race - June (alternating years)
Block Island Race Week - July (alternating years)
New York YC Race Week - July
Aldo Alessio Regatta - St Francis YC - July
Ida Lewis Distance Race - August
Stamford YC Vineyard Race - August
St Francis YC Big Boat Series – September
American YC Fall Series - September
Long Island Sound IRC Championship-September
IRC East Coast Championship-October
Nassau Cup Ocean Race - November
Wirth M. Munroe Fort Lauderdale to Palm Beach Yacht Race - December

Min121013 (1) MJU

24

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 8
Introduction to Agenda Item 10.
Slide 1.

The Future?
Slide 2.
IRC Rated Boats
2007:
2008:
2009 :
2010:
2011:
2011 (to 31/8):
2012 (to 31/8):

7340
7715
7347
7199
7066
6181
5675

+475
-368
-148 -516-133 -649-506

Slide 3.
Technical Committee Comments and Concerns• .... Concern at the decline in IRC rated boats during 2011 and particularly the steep
decline so far in 2012.
• In 2011, 16.9% of all applications were new applications. In 2010, 19.4% were new
applications:• Probably related partly to the worldwide economic situation, but decline is still ofconcern• .... Statistics suggest that the IRC fleet is aging (fewer new boats)• … Concern at the reductions in numbers of both new applications and new boats.

Slide 4.
Why?
Is this all due to the world economy?
Unlikely.

Min121013 (1) MJU

25

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
What else might be contributory?
Courses?
Class splits?
Increased use of performance handicap systems?
Competition from other rating systems?
Difficulty finding enough (competent!) crew?
Cost of certification?
Cost of race entries?
Campaigning costs (sails, etc)?
‘My boat is not competitive’?
Misunderstanding of IRC Rules?
Complexity of the IRC application form?
Other.....?

Slide 5.
GBR IRC Survey - Costs• The adoption and use of IRC is a complex issue, it is not just cost.
• Most respondents had multiple reasons for not using IRC.
• Certificate cost alone is not a significant disincentive.
• Associated costs are a significant disincentive.
• Reducing fees by 25% would not similarly increase no. of certified boats.
• No evidence of a link between boat size and resistance to fees.
• No grounds for reducing fees for smaller boats at the expense of higher fees for larger
boats.
• More resistance to revalidation than new application fees.

Slide 6.
GBR IRC Survey – Other Issues• Most respondents had multiple reasons for not using IRC.
• ..... Some designs/owners will never be attracted to IRC. However we should stillendeavour to improve IRC’s treatment of cruising oriented boats.
• Many owners misunderstand IRC rules and principles.
• ‘Professional’ crews are resented in a number of cases.
• For many boats and clubs, PY/local handicap systems are entirely satisfactory.
• Single and double handed racing appears to be a popular element of the sport.
• Use of an IRC certificates at open events is a significant benefit to owners.

Min121013 (1) MJU

26

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
• Opportunity for expansion of IRC in clubs currently running both IRC and PY/local
handicap. Care will be needed in exploring this.

Slide 7.
What are we (the IRC Rating Authority) doing about this?
• Limited Validity IRC TCCs.
A ‘Limited Validity IRC TCC’ is an IRC TCC issued by the IRC Rating Authority for use by
a boat for a race or regatta (or part of) comprising races run over not more than 9
consecutive days including any lay days.
We have agreed with the IRC Policy Steering Group that we will conduct an experiment in
GBR in 2013.
Our intent is to encourage boats who would not otherwise do so to experiment with using
IRC.
The cost will be £1.50 + £5.00 per day of validity to a maximum of 9 days.
Boats subsequently upgrading to a full IRC certificate will receive a discount on their new
application fee.
If the experiment is successful, LV TCCs will be offered on a wider basis in 2014.

Slide 8.
What are we (the IRC Rating Authority) doing about this?
• Work to better publicise IRC.
Additions and changes to the website.
Try and publicise the GBR survey findings.
Highlight the benefits to Clubs of using IRC.
Address common ‘misconceptions.

Slide 9.
What is the GBR IRC Rule Authority doing about this?
• Regional Visits to Clubs.
Get the Clubs together in one place to highlight the benefits of regional co-operation andcommon racing policies.
Explain the benefits of Using IRC as opposed to local rating systems.
Encourage events for smaller lower rating boats.
• Working with the RYA and others to better integrate IRC and performance handicap
systems.
In GBR we recognise the value of performance handicap systems.
Racing should preferably be dual scored with mechanisms to ensure that the ‘racers’ do
not win under both.

Min121013 (1) MJU

27

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 9
GBR IRC Surveys
IRC Surveys 2012 - Summary
Two on-line surveys have been held, one aimed at owners not currently using IRC and the second atclubs, to explore cost sensitivity and other issues related to the reasons why some owners and clubs
are reluctant to use IRC.
We are grateful to both Ocean Safety for sponsoring the owners survey and to the Island Sailing Clubfor assisting significantly in publicising the owners survey.
A good response has been received to both surveys with it is believed significant responses from theprimary target audiences.
The primary conclusions drawn are that:•

The adoption and use of IRC is a complex issue, and is far from solely a cost issue withthe majority of respondents having multiple reasons for not using IRC.

•

Certification cost on its own does not appear to be a significant disincentive. Reduction incertification costs would not produce a commensurate increase in the number of certifiedboats.

•

There is no evidence of a linkage between boat size and resistance to fees. No grounds
can be seen to reduce fees for smaller boats at the expense of higher fees for larger
boats.

•

A significant number of owners do not see the justification for revalidation fees at all or
consider that they should be reduced.

•

For a significant percentage of boats and clubs, PY/local handicap systems are entirely
satisfactory.

•

There appears to be room for expansion of IRC in clubs currently running a combinationof IRC and PY/local handicap.

•

There are apparently many owners who have misunderstood IRC rules and principles.

As a result of these surveys, various actions are planned including detail changes to the IRC website,
efforts to publically dispel common misunderstandings, and development of a strategy to take IRC toclubs.

Min121013 (1) MJU

28

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
IRC Surveys 20121.

PreambleAt the GBR IRC Committee meeting in September 2011, there was discussion relating to thedesirability of reducing IRC certification fees for smaller boats. In subsequent internal discussion, it
quickly became apparent that any evidence that the level of fees was a deterrent was purely
anecdotal; we had no hard evidence.
We therefore decided to make no changes in fee structure for 2011 in favour of trying to establish
firmer ground on which to base decisions.
It was decided that the initial and primary method of establishing facts should be a survey aimed
primarily at non-IRC users. In parallel, a similar survey aimed at clubs was developed.
We are most grateful to Ocean Safety, GBR IRC sponsors, for their offer of prizes to survey
participants. We are sure that the offer of a lifejacket drawn at random for every 250 responses
received was a significant element in encouraging participation.

We are also grateful to the Island Sailing Club for their assistance in publicising these surveys.
The following describes the surveys and the outcomes.

2.

The Surveys

The primary target of both surveys was GBR based sailors and GBR clubs. Both surveys were
therefore published on-line on www.rorcrating.com, ie the RORC Rating Office’s website as opposedto the main IRC site, www.ircrating.org. rorcrating.com is of course open to all and a number of
responses were also received from overseas owners and clubs. The text used is shown in Appendix 1.
While the initial rationale for the survey was to explore cost sensitivity, it was decided that we should
also use the opportunity to ask various other questions. For both surveys, the format chosen was
effectively ‘multiple choice’ with options to add comments.
The questions asked for the two surveys are given in Appendices 2 and 3.
In response to the question What would, or does, deter you from applying for an IRC certificate?
Please select ALL that apply, a considerable number of respondents to the owners survey ticked the
reply: My boat would not be competitive. We therefore subsequently asked this group for more detail.
This second sub-survey is detailed in Appendix 4.
A difficulty we faced was publicising the surveys. Plainly, we do not hold contact details for non-IRC
users! In addition to our own current database, we therefore publicised the surveys through on-line
media such as ScuttlebuttEurope and our own newsletter. We also asked the RYA and yachting print
media (Yachts & Yachting, Yachting World, Yachting Monthly, Seahorse) to assist. To date, this latterhas not proved over successful.
The most successful publicity was via the Island Sailing Club’s list of entrants to the ISC rated class inthe 2011 Round The Island Race. After some discussion, the ISC E-Mailed this list with text suppliedby us. That single E-Mail generated in excess of 250 responses within 72 hours!
Min121013 (1) MJU

29

IRC Congress Meeting 20123.

Discussion - Owners Survey

We received 512 responses.

Cost of certificate

Complexity of theapplication form

My boat would not becompetitive

Associated costs to becompetitive (eg. sails,
measurement)

I cannot get enough crew to
be competitive

There is no IRC racing at
my club

I do not compete in IRC
eventsI am perfectly happy with
PY/local handicap

Other (please specify)

Totals:Percentage:

I only race casuallyA2.1 What would, or does, deter you from applying for an IRC certificate? Please selectALL that apply
I only race occasionally

3.1

237
46.3

133
26.0

245
47.9

104
20.3

187
36.5

209
40.8

72
14.1

73
14.3

111
21.7

140
27.3

95
18.6

Reason60.00
50.00

Percentage

40.00
30.00

Series1

20.00
10.00
0.00
I only race
occasionallyI only race
casually

Cost ofcertificate

Complexity of
the applicationform

My boat would
not becompetitive

Associatedcosts

I cannot get
There is no IRC
I do notenough crew to racing at my compete in IRC
be competitive
club
eventsI am perfectly
happy with
PY/localhandicap

Other (please
specify)

The total number of responses to this question was 1606 from 512 respondents broken down as:
No. of reasons
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

No. of respondents
12
91
95
117
95
51
27
15
9

While cost of certificate was the most common reason stated, further analysis shows that of those
respondents (91) who only gave a single reason, 15 (16%) gave cost of certificate as the sole reason.
Of those (95) giving 2 reasons, 33 (35%) included cost of certificate. Of those (117) giving 3 reasons,
60 (51%) included cost of certificate. I infer from these figures that certification cost alone is asignificant deterrent for only a small minority of respondents.
The most common reason from single reason respondents was ‘I only race occasionally’ with 27(30%).

Min121013 (1) MJU

30

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Including all respondents, looking at the reasons most often included, ‘Associated costs’ is plainly aconsiderable deterrent. Associated costs for even the most frugal owner will plainly dwarf certificate
costs.
It is also notable that a large number of owners are perfectly happy with PY/local handicap. While wemust of course respect those views, we should I consider attempt to define more clearly the benefits of
IRC.
Common reasons stated under ‘Other’ included: a preference for one-design racing, a low TCC below
event cut-off, boats competing in the RTI only, exclusion of sports boats by clubs, revalidation (asopposed to initial certification) cost, preference for PY/local handicap,
3.2

A4.1 My boat would not be competitive because: Please select ALL that apply.

I do not believe that my boat iscompetitive against other boats in
our fleet.

I and/or my crew are not sufficiently
experienced to race under IRC.

The courses that my club sets do
not suit my boat or favour otherboats.

I would have to spend money on
new sails and/or other racing
equipment and preparation.

51

25

10

38

17

20

7

39

10

Percentage:

39

48

57

28

11

43

19

22

8

44

11

Other. Please specify below.

I have been told that the IRC TCC
for the design is uncompetitive.

43

I cannot get sufficient crew.

The IRC TCC for the design is
uncompetitive.

35

The boat is fully fitted out.

Totals:The design is not suited to racing.

I carry lots of extras and cruisingequipment.

As noted above, we asked respondents who had replied My boat would not be competitive a second
question related to this. We received 89 responses to this with a total number of reasons given of 295,
an average of 3.3 reasons per response:

Plainly, there are many different reasons why owners consider their boats to be uncompetitive. It isalso evident that for the great majority of respondents, there are multiple reasons. It is thus very
difficult to define what we might do or change within IRC to address this.

4
11

8
21

7
18

20
53

Other. Please specify below.

38
100

I would have to spend money on
new sails and/or other racing
equipment and preparation.

2
5

The courses that my club sets do
not suit my boat or favour otherboats.

8
21

I and/or my crew are not sufficiently
experienced to race under IRC.

I do not believe that my boat iscompetitive against other boats in
our fleet.

28
74

I cannot get sufficient crew.

I have been told that the IRC TCC
for the design is uncompetitive.

23
61

The IRC TCC for the design is
uncompetitive.

18
47

I carry lots of extras and cruisingequipment.

Totals:Percentage:The boat is fully fitted out.

The design is not suited to racing.

Looking in a little more detail, 38 respondents stated I do not believe that my boat is competitive
against other boats in our fleet. Extracting just these 38 from all the replies:

616

For only 1 of the 38 replies was I do not believe that my boat is competitive against other boats in our
fleet the only reason stated.
Min121013 (1) MJU

31

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Intriguingly, just 8 of these 38 consider that the IRC TCC for their boat is uncompetitive. That to me
seems illogical.
Looking at other replies, 74% stated that they carry additional cruising equipment. This would firstly bevery hard to address. IRC does not include any sort of ‘inventory’ of loose equipment. Control of what
exactly was on board would thus be in practical terms impossible. Secondly, the simple fact that theboats carry this gear suggests that racing is not the prime use of the boat. This group therefore should
be considered as of second order interest to us.
61% stated that the boat is fully fitted out. This confirms to me that there is a widespread
misconception that to race under IRC boats need to be stripped of their furniture and fittings. Plainly
this is not the case; many fully fitted out production boats are fully competitive under IRC.
53% of the sub-group are reluctant to spend money on their boats for racing purposes.
47% consider that the design of the boat is not suited to racing. Reviewing the designs in the group,
the vast majority are clearly of a cruising nature.

3
12

2
8

1
4

7
28

Other. Please specify below.

832

I would have to spend money on
new sails and/or other racing
equipment and preparation.

1
4

The courses that my club sets do
not suit my boat or favour otherboats.

25
100

I and/or my crew are not sufficiently
experienced to race under IRC.

I do not believe that my boat iscompetitive against other boats in
our fleet.

1040

I cannot get sufficient crew.

I have been told that the IRC TCC
for the design is uncompetitive.

8
32

The IRC TCC for the design is
uncompetitive.

6
24

I carry lots of extras and cruisingequipment.

Totals:Percentage:The boat is fully fitted out.

The design is not suited to racing.

Analysing further, 25 boats replied that The IRC TCC for the design is uncompetitive. Extracting justthese 25 from all the replies:3
12

For 10 of the 25 replies, The IRC TCC for the design is uncompetitive was the only reason stated.
Again, intriguingly, just 8 of these 25 consider that they would not be competitive against other boats
in their fleet. That again seems illogical.
As with the previous sub-group, additional cruising equipment, full fitout, and additional cost are againof high importance. Noting firstly the 10 single reason replies and secondly that these reasons arefewer in number, this suggests that the uncompetitive TCC is apparently more important.
Summarising this sub-group analysis, it is always going to be difficult to attract owners who consider
that they will be fundamentally uncompetitive under IRC. This is particularly so when in the great
majority of cases it appears that this is only one of multiple reasons for non-use of IRC.
3.3

A2.2 If cost is an issue, please indicate (as a % of current fees) the MAXIMUM that would
be acceptable to you

Min121013 (1) MJU

32

98
19

Cost not an issue

100
20

75%

69
13

50%

25%

Totals:Percentage:

0% ie. free

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

31
6

216
42

Acceptable cost

45.00
40.00
35.00

Percentage

30.00
25.00
Series1
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0% ie. free

25%

50%

75%

Cost not an
issue

Thus, just 31 (6%) responded that a 25% reduction in certification fees (ie 75% of the current fees)
would satisfy them.
The fundamental point to emerge from this question is that to achieve a significant increase in
numbers, we would potentially need to reduce fees by of the order of 50%. At face value, this would
appear to make IRC attractive to some 25% more owners. However, of those respondents (91) who
only gave a single reason for not using IRC, just 9 would apparently be prepared to pay 75% of thecurrent fee. A further 13 (from 95) who gave 2 reasons would apparently be prepared to pay 50% of
the current fee. Thus, it seems that reducing fees would on its own not work. 22 owners from a sample
of 512 is just 4%. Noting that there is in addition a second reason for not using IRC for 13 of this 22,even that seems potentially optimistic.

Min121013 (1) MJU>12m

10 - 12m

8 - 10m

6 - 8m

A2.3 Please indicate the length of your boat

<6m

3.4

33

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Totals:Percentage:

5
1.0

105
20.5

177
34.6

159
31.1

55
10.7

Length of boat

40.00

35.00

30.00

Percentage

25.00

20.00

Series1

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
<6m

6 - 8m

8 - 10m

10 - 12m>12m

The data above closely matches statistics for the overall GBR IRC fleet which in 2011 had an average
length of 10.61m. This then suggests (but of course does not prove) that we have had responses froma reasonably balanced group.

6 - 8m

8 - 10m

10 - 12m>12m

Totals:<6m

Filtering the above data to extract respondents who gave only 1 reason for not using IRC with thatreason being the cost of certificates results in the following:

0

4

10

0

1

6 - 8m

8 - 10m

10 - 12m>12m

Totals:<6m

Including also respondents who gave only 2 reasons for not using IRC with one of those reasons
being the cost of certificates:

0

10

13

9

1

The above extracts do not suggest any significant trend that respondents with smaller boats would findreduced fees more acceptable.

Min121013 (1) MJU

34

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

Wales

North West EnglandWestern Scotland

Eastern Scotland

North East England

East/South

Northern Ireland

Channel Islands

Isle of Man

Overseas

Totals:Percentage:

South West

A2.4 Where do you keep your boat (GBR owners only)

South

3.5

348
68.0

57
11.1

2
0.4

3
0.6

6
1.2

1
0.2

11
2.1

46
9.0

2
0.4

0
0.0

0
0.0

58
11.3

With 68% or respondents being south coast based (cf GBR IRC fleet 56%) the above data is at somevariance with the overall distribution of IRC fleets within GBR. Noting that we received a verysignificant response from the E-Mail sent to the ISC list, this is unsurprising.
It is not known whether this will have had any effect on the balance of responses generally.

Swinging mooring / trot

Mud berth

Totals:Percentage:

MarinaA2.7 What type of mooring do you have?

Dry Sail

3.6

20
3.9

273
53.3

194
37.9

16
3.1

This question was included for interest only. It is unknown how this data matches overall berthingstatistics.

7 - 10

10 - 15

15 - 20> 20

Totals:Percentage:

4-6

A2.8 Approximately how many individual RACES do you compete in each year?

1-3

3.7

174
34.0

53
10.4

39
7.6

57
11.1

8
1.6

110
21.5

Noting that close to 45% of respondents compete in only 1 – 6 races per year, we appear to haveachieved our aim of reaching the less serious racers.

Min121013 (1) MJU

35

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

Mainly open events

Only open event

Totals:Percentage:

Mainly my club's races

A2.9 Do you compete only in your own club's races or do you compete in open events?

Only my club's races

3.8

48
9.4

235
45.9

78
15.2

126
24.6

Noting that 55% of respondents compete exclusively or mainly in their own club’s races, we again
appear to have achieved our aim of reaching the less serious racers.
It is clear however that only a small percentage of respondents compete exclusively ‘at home’. Basedon my knowledge of cruiser racing here in Lymington, I suspect that in reality the percentage of thewhole GBR cruiser fleet that only races at home is much higher. This suggests that we have notsuccessfully reached a significant percentage of this group. I consider however that boats that only
ever compete in their own clubs races are unlikely to be a prime target for IRC.
Unless of course those clubs can be persuaded to adopt IRC. Philosophically, we need to be careful inany attempts to do this. I am very firmly of the view that PY and local handicaps are a central part ofcruiser racing in GBR. Without those fleets, there is no quick and easy route into the sport.
3.9

A2.10 Do you currently hold an IRC certificate?

81 (16%) of respondents reported that they held a current IRC certificate.
3.10 A2.12 Have you held a CHS/IRC rating in the past for this boat?
167 (33%) of respondents reported that they had previously held an IRC certificate.

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Pre 2001

Totals:Percentage:

2010

3.11 A2.13 If you have previously held CHS/IRC, how long ago was that?

55
10.7

30
5.9

20
3.9

14
2.7

8
1.6

12
2.3

4
0.8

5
1.0

7
1.4

5
1.0

0
0.0

3.12 A2.14 Do you have any other comments?
Many comments were received, far too many to individually note here. Comments generally fell into
two categories: comments and misconceptions.
Regularly occurring comments and complaints:

Min121013 (1) MJU

36

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
The fact of a cost to revalidate, and the actual cost.
One-Designs should be charged lower fees.
A ‘New to IRC’ section on the websites. (Note: Already done)
Hi-Tech sails should rate higher.
‘Pro’ crews within IRC.
Age Allowance (in both directions – too high and not high enough!).
Slow boats being excluded by events.
Sisterships not rating the same.
Fees generally.
Common Misconceptions:
Boats must be weighed.
Boats must be measured.
Respondents unaware of standard hull data list.
IRC boats are all ‘stripped out’. Mine is fully fitted out.

4.

Discussion - Clubs Survey

Responses were received from 52 clubs.

Mostly PY/local handicap,
some IRC

All PY/local handicap

Other (please specify)

Totals:Percentage:

Mostly IRC, some PY/local
handicap

A3.1 What type of racing does your club run?

All IRC

4.1

1
2.0

8
16.0

20
40.0

10
20.0

11
22.0

Min121013 (1) MJU

37

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
All IRC

Mostly IRC, some
Mostly PY/local
PY/local handicap handicap, some IRC

All PY/local
handicap

Other (please
specify)

This data confirms that there is potential for IRC growth. The immediate target group here should I
consider be the clubs running mostly PY/local handicap, some IRC. 20 clubs in this group is potentiallya significant market.
The 10 clubs running All PY/local handicap are of course also of interest.
Of those replying other, the majority mentioned one-design racing. Personal handicap (which I include
under the general heading of local handicaps) was mentioned once, as was the Byron system.

It is too expensive for ourfleet

Our fleet is not suitable (ie.
types of boats)

We've never thought about it

IRC is just for big open
events, not club racing

We tried it but the owners
weren't interested

Our fleet prefers to haveadjustable handicaps

Our fleet is perfectly happy
with PY/local handicap

Other (please specify)

Totals:Percentage:

The rules seem toocomplicatedA3.2 If you do not run ANY IRC racing, what are the reasons for that? please tick all thatapply

We don't know anything
about IRC

4.2

0
0.0

2
3.7

15
27.8

10
18.5

0
0.0

1
1.9

1
1.9

8
14.8

9
16.7

8
14.8

Min121013 (1) MJU

38

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

sp
ec
if y
)

ic
ap

pl
ea
se

O
th
er
(

PY

/lo
ca
lh
an
d

ha
nd
ic
ap
s
w
ith

ha
pp
y

pe
rfe
ct
ly

O
ur
f

le
et
is

le
et
pr
ef
er
s

to

ha
ve

ow
ne
rs

w

ad
ju
st
ab
le

er
en
't
i

nt
er
es
te
d

ra
cin
g

it

ur
f
O

W
e

tri

ed

it

bu
t

th
e

op
en
fo
rb
ig

ju
st
is
IR
C

no
tc
lu
b

ev
en
ts
,

th
ou
gh
t

of

ne
ve
r

(ie
.t
yp
es

ur
f
O

ab
ou
t

bo
at
s)

le
et
fo
ro
ur
f

le
et
is

It

W
e'
ve

is

no
ts

to
o

ui
ta
bl
e

ex
pe
ns
i

ve

co
m
to
o

se
em
es

ru
l
Th
e

W
e

do
n't
kn
ow

an
yt
hi
ng

ab
ou
t

IR

pl
ic
at
ed

C

0.0

25 clubs responded to this question. Of these:
No. of reasons
1
2
3
4
5

No. of respondents
8
10
3
3
1

Of those clubs giving only one reason, in only I case was that ‘It is too expensive for our fleet’.
Interestingly, this club chose to remain anonymous raising a question as the validity of this response.
4 clubs replied ‘Other’ and in 3 cases added that they ran only a minimal number of low key races.
8 of the 10 clubs stating 2 reasons included ‘It is too expensive for our fleet’ as one of their reasons.
For 5 of these 8, the second reason was ‘Our fleet is not suitable (ie. types of boats)’. While thissecond reason may or may not be valid, these responses again suggest that simple cost is rarely thesole factor in deciding the type of rating/handicapping system that a club uses.

6m to 10m

8m to 12m

10m to 12m

Longer than 12m

Totals:Percentage:

Less than 8m

A3.3 What is the average length of the majority of boats in your fleet?

Less than 6m

4.3

0
0

1
2

7
13

30
58

12
23

2
3.8

This data again appears to match reasonably overall GBR IRC fleet statistics.
Min121013 (1) MJU

39

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Combining this data with question A2.2, the anonymous club reported an average boat length of 8 to
12m, in other words, not the smallest boats. Of the other 8 clubs noted above, 6 also reported anaverage length of 8 to 12m, with 1 of the others reporting 6 to 10m and the other 10 to 12m. In otherwords, while the average length of the boats in these fleets may be less than the GBR average, if thatis so, it is not less by a great amount. These are far from the smallest boats in the fleet.

Wales

North West EnglandWestern Scotland

Eastern Scotland

North East England

East / South East

Northern Ireland

Channel Islands

Isle of Man

Totals:Percentage:

South West

A3.4 If you are in GBR, in what area of the country are you?

South coast

4.4

17
39.5

14
32.6

0
0.0

0
0.0

0
0.0

1
2.3

5
11.6

6
14.0

0
0.0

0
0.0

0
0.0

43 responses were received. As with the individual responses, the distribution of these clubs appears
to be at some variance with the overall distribution of IRC fleets within GBR. Again, it is not known
whether this will have had any effect on the balance of responses generally.

Swinging mooring / trot

Mud berth

Don't know

Totals:Percentage:

MarinaA3.6 What type of mooring does most of your fleet use?

Dry sail

4.5

3
6.4

16
34.0

25
53.2

3
6.4

0
0.0

This question was included for interest only. It is unknown how this data matches overall berthingstatistics.

4 to7

8 to10More than 10

Totals:Percentage:

1 to 3A3.7 Approximately how many INSHORE races to you run each year?

None

4.6

1
2.9

1
2.9

3
8.8

2
5.9

27
79.4

The above suggests that the responses we have received have been from clubs with significant racing
programmes.
4.7

A3.8 Approximately how many OFFSHORE races do you run each year?

Min121013 (1) MJU

40

1 to 3

4 to7

8 to10More than 10

Totals:Percentage:

None

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

8
34.8

7
30.4

5
21.7

1
4.3

2
8.7

Only 23 responses were received to this question. Taken with the responses to the question above
relating to inshore races, the data nevertheless strongly supports the obvious contention that the great
majority of racing is inshore racing.

5 to10More than 10

Totals:Percentage:

1 to 5A3.9 Do you run any single or double handed races?

None

4.8

24
72.7

5
15.2

2
6.1

2
6.1

33 responses were received to this question. With 9 clubs reporting that they run single or double
handed races, this nevertheless appears to be a measureable element of the sport.

Mainly open events

Don't know

Totals:Percentage:

Club events and open
eventsA3.10 Do most of your members only compete in your own club's races, or also in open
events?
Only club events

4.9

10
25.6

28
71.8

1
2.6

0
0.0

The benefit to boats of being able to use their IRC certificates at open events would appear from theabove to be significant.

No

Don't know

Totals:Percentage:

Yes

4.10 A3.11 Do any of your members hold a current IRC certificate?

32
80.0

8
20.0

0
0.0

Min121013 (1) MJU

41

IRC Congress Meeting 2012

25%

50%

75%

over 75%

Totals:Percentage:

less than 25%

4.11 A3.12 If 'yes', approximately what percentage of your fleet hold a current IRC certificate?

15
41.7

15
41.7

0
0.0

3
8.3

3
8.3

With only 6 of the 46 respondents reporting 75% or more of their fleets as holding IRC certificates,
there is at face value plainly room for expansion. As however stated above, noting my views on PY
and local handicaps, we need to be careful in any attempts to do this. That does not of course meanthat it is not worth exploring.
4.12 A3.13 Do you have any other comments?
A great variety of comments were received. Significantly, 11 clubs mentioned (usually alongside otherissues) that cost, both of certification and also the on-cost of IRC racing were deterrents.
Other comments received included:
Apathy.
Local conditions (tidal river sailing) predicating the use of local handicaps.
Unsuitable boats.
Problems with IRC treatment of classics.
IRC racing is dominated by stripped out boats with new sails each year, sailed by pro crews, andwhich were dry sailed.
Revalidation costs should be reduced.
Development of a ‘Club’ level IRC.
IRC should be free.
PY permits local, performance-based, tweaks to the handicap which serves to increase thecompetitiveness of the slower competitors thus maintaining their interest and participation. These
people are not interested in full-on racing but nonetheless enjoy racing against their peers at their level.
The Complexity of IRC.
5.

Conclusions

These two surveys have been successful. We have I believe generally reached our target audiences
and have learnt a significant amount.
The fundamental conclusions drawn are:
5.1

The adoption and use of IRC is a complex issue and is far from solely a cost issue.

5.2

The majority of respondents had multiple reasons for not using IRC.

5.3

Noting the cruising nature of the majority of the boats that are considered by their owners to be
uncompetitive, and also that the majority of these owners had additional reasons for not using
IRC, we should accept that there are some designs and owners that we will never attract.
This does not of course mean that we should not endeavour to improve IRC’s treatment of more
fundamentally cruising oriented boats.

5.4

While certification cost is mentioned repeatedly, on its own it does not appear to be a significant
disincentive.

Min121013 (1) MJU

42

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
5.5

Reducing fees by 25% would not produce a comparable increase in the number of certifiedboats.

5.6

There is no evidence of a linkage between boat size and resistance to fees.

5.7

No grounds can be seen to reduce fees for smaller boats at the expense of higher fees forlarger boats.

5.8

There is less comment about new application fees than there is about revalidation fees. A
significant number of owners do not see the justification for these latter at all or consider thatthey should be reduced.

5.9

Associated costs are a significant disincentive.

5.10 There are apparently many owners who have misunderstood IRC rules and principles.
5.11 ‘Professional’ crews are resented in a number of cases.
5.12 For a significant percentage of boats and clubs, PY/local handicap systems are entirely
satisfactory.
5.13 Single and double handed racing appears to be a measureable element of the sport.
5.14 The benefit to boats of being able to use their IRC certificates at open events would appear
from the above to be significant.
5.15 There appears to be room for expansion of IRC in clubs currently running a combination of IRC
and PY/local handicap. Care will be needed in exploring this.

Min121013 (1) MJU

43

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
6.

Actions

6.1

Add a ‘New to IRC’ section to the websites. [Note: Done.]

6.2

Add a ‘Clubs new to IRC’ section to the websites.

6.3

Consider re-balancing new application fees and revalidation fees. It is accepted that this will bedifficult and quite possibly impossible.

6.4

Produce editorial to address and as appropriate dispel the common comments andmisconceptions, particularly that boats need to be stripped of fitout to successfully compete
under IRC.

6.5

Work with the yachting press, perhaps Yachting World, to publicise our findings and the editorial
resulting from 6.1.

6.6

Produce editorial to better define the benefits to both owners and clubs of using IRC.

6.7

Consider (again!) the possibility of introducing limited validity certificates valid for only aparticular race or regatta.

6.8

Develop a strategy to take IRC to clubs with the potential to adopt or increase their use of IRC.
This will almost certainly include a series of visits and lectures. Review and development of thecurrent ‘IRC Incentives’ should also be included.

6.9

Encourage clubs to host racing and regattas for low rating boats.

Mike Urwin.
29 August 2012.

Min121013 (1) MJU

44

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 1:

Owners Survey Publicity

Racing questionnaire
The RORC Rating Office is trying to find out how to encourage more people to use IRC. It is no secretthat the Rating Office fully supports PY and local handicap systems to encourage people into the sport;
however we are interested in why more people do not then progress into IRC. The information in thisquestionnaire is intended for our information; it is NOT intended to bombard owners with a 'hard sell',but if you include your name and contact we may wish to answer any specific comments or address
false perceptions. Thank you for your help.

Every 250 E-Mail addresses received will be put into a draw with the first name drawn being awarded
an Ocean safety KRU Sport Pro combined lifejacket and harness worth £159.95. Offer limited to GBR
based respondents only.

The link to the Owners' survey is: http://www.rorcrating.com/not-using-irc-tell-us-why.html

Min121013 (1) MJU

45

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 2:

Owners Survey: Questions

1.

What would, or does, deter you from applying for an IRC certificate? Please select ALL
that apply
I only race occasionallyI only race casually
Cost of certificate
Complexity of the application form
My boat would not be competitive
Associated costs to be competitive (eg. sails, measurement)
I cannot get enough crew to be competitive
There is no IRC racing at my club
I do not compete in IRC events
I am perfectly happy with PY/local handicap
Other (please specify)
If 'other' please give details

2.

If cost is an issue, please indicate (as a % of current fees) the MAXIMUM that would be
acceptable to you
0% ie. Free
25%
50%
75%

3.

Please indicate the length of your boatLess than 6m
6m to 8m
8m to 10m
10m to 12m
Longer than 12m

4.

Where do you keep your boat (GBR owners only)
South coastSouth West
Wales
North West EnglandWestern Scotland
Eastern Scotland
North East England
East / South East
Northern Ireland
Channel Islands
Isle of Man

5.

If you are outside GBR, in what country/region do you keep your boat?

6.

To which sailing/yacht club do you belong?

7.

What type of mooring do you have?
Dry sailMarinaSwinging mooring / trot
Mud berth8.

Approximately how many individual RACES do you compete in each year?
1 to 34 to 6
7 to 10

Min121013 (1) MJU

46

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
10 to 15
15 to 20
over 20
9.

Do you compete only in your own club's races or do you compete in open events?
Only my club's races
Mainly my club's races, occasional open event
Mainly open events, occasional club races
Only open events

10.

Do you currently hold an IRC certificate?
Yes
No

11.

If you do hold a current IRC, what is the certificate number?

12.

Have you held a CHS/IRC rating in the past for this boat?
Yes
No

13.

If you have previously held CHS/IRC, how long ago was that?
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000 or earlier

14.

Do you have any other comments?

Min121013 (1) MJU

47

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 3:

Club Survey: Questions

Club nameContact nameE-mail1.

What type of racing does your club run?
All IRC
Mostly IRC, some PY/local handicap
Mostly PY/local handicap, some IRC
All PY/local handicap
Other (please specify)
If 'other', please give details

2.

If you do not run ANY IRC racing, what are the reasons for that? please tick all that apply
We don't know anything about IRC
The rules seem too complicated
It is too expensive for our fleet
Our fleet is not suitable (ie. types of boats)
We've never thought about it
IRC is just for big open events, not club racing
We tried it but the owners weren't interested
Our fleet prefers to have adjustable handicaps
Our fleet is perfectly happy with PY/local handicap
Other (please specify)
If 'other', please give details

3.

What is the average length of the majority of boats in your fleet?
Less than 6m
6m to 8m
8m to 10m
10m to 12m
Longer than 12m

4.

If you are in GBR, in what area of the country are you?
South coastSouth West
Wales
North West EnglandWestern Scotland
Eastern Scotland
North East England
East / South East
Northern Ireland
Channel Islands
Isle of Man

5.

If you are outside GBR, what Country AND region are you in?

6.

What type of mooring does most of your fleet use?
Dry sailMarinaSwinging mooring / trot
Mud berth
Don't know

Min121013 (1) MJU

48

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
7.

Approximately how many INSHORE races to you run each year?
None
1 to 34 to 78 to 1011 to15
16 to 20
more than 20

8.

Approximately how many OFFSHORE races do you run each year?
None
1 to 3
4 to7
8 to10More than 10

9.

Do you run any single or double handed races?
None
1 to 5
5 to10More than 10

10.

Do most of your members only compete in your own club's races, or also in open
events?
Only club eventsClub events and open events
Mainly open events
Don't know

11.

Do any of your members hold a current IRC certificate?
Yes
No
Don't know

12.

If 'yes', approximately what percentage of your fleet hold a current IRC certificate?
less than 25%
25%
50%
75%
over 75%

13.

Do you have any other comments?

Min121013 (1) MJU

49

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 4:

Owners Survey: “My Boat is not Competitive”

Thankyou very much for completing our on-line survey investigating the reasons why some owners
are reluctant to use IRC.
So far we have received in excess of 500 replies. The information provided is proving very valuable inhelping us to decide the best courses of action to continue to improve and grow IRC into the future.
In answer to the question:
What would, or does, deter you from applying for an IRC certificate?
you ticked the option:
My boat would not be competitive.
We would like to understand a little more about the underlying reasons for this reply.
We would therefore be grateful for your time in responding to the following additional questions.
To respond to this enquiry, please simply reply to this e-mail, giving the numbers of all theoptions below that apply (eg 1, 2, 4), and add the boat design (eg. Contessa 26) and any othercomment that you wish to make.
My boat would not be competitive because: Please select ALL that apply.
1 The design is not suited to racing.
2 The boat is fully fitted out.
3 I carry lots of extras and cruising equipment.
4 The IRC TCC for the design is uncompetitive.
5 I have been told that the IRC TCC for the design is uncompetitive.
6 I do not believe that my boat is competitive against other boats in our fleet.
7 I cannot get sufficient crew.
8 I and/or my crew are not sufficiently experienced to race under IRC.
9 The courses that my club sets do not suit my boat or favour other boats.
10 I would have to spend money on new sails and/or other racing equipment and preparation.
11 Other. Please specify below.
What design is your boat?
Other comment?

We are very grateful for your reply. Many thanks in advance.

Mike Urwin
RORC Rating Office Technical Director
18 January 2012

Min121013 (1) MJU

50

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Appendix 10
IRC LIMITED VALIDITY TCC(LV TCC)
Full details at: http://www.rorcrating.com/lv-tcc.html

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSWhat is a Limited Validity TCC?
A Limited Validity (LV) TCC is an IRC rating for a single event, designed for those who only do one or
two IRC races a year. Please see the website link above for full information.
Who can get an LV TCC, is it available worldwide?
For 2013 LV TCCs are only available in GBR at approved events (see questions below), on a trial
basis. If the trial is successful it is hoped to extend the scheme to other IRC countries. Eventorganisers: please see the final question on this page.
Do I have to complete a full IRC application form to get an LV TCC?
Yes. An LV TCC is based on exactly the same data as a standard IRC certificate so you will need tocomplete an application form if your boat isn’t already on the IRC database. If the boat has been rated
before please contact the Rating Office to check what information is needed.
How many LV TCCs can I have each year?
A maximum of two. Each LV TCC is valid for a single event over a maximum of 9 consecutive days.
Can I use an LV TCC for any event?
An LV TCC can only be used in an event that has been approved by the IRC Rule Authority. LV TCCs
cannot be Endorsed, so are not eligible for events or classes that require an Endorsed (measured)
IRC certificate. Please check with the race organiser before applying for an LV TCC.
How will I know whether the event I am entering will accept LV TCCs?
The Notice of Race will include a paragraph specifically stating that LV TCCs will be accepted for the
event. If in doubt, check with the event organiser.
Will a list of events that accept LV TCCs be listed on the website?
The Rating Office will publish a list of events where LV TCCs will be accepted. The link will be fromthe main LV page as shown above.
I have a current IRC certificate. Can I get an LV TCC for an event for which I want to use a
different configuration?
No, LV TCCs are designed for boats that do not have a current IRC certificate, and are only going to
do one or two IRC events in the year. It is not available as a substitute for getting an amended IRC
certificate for a different configuration.
Are there any limitations on the type of boat that can get an LV TCC?
The only limit is on length – LV TCCs are available for boats up to 22m (approx 72’) hull length.
Can I apply and pay for an LV TCC online?
Yes, you can apply and pay through our online system MyIRC on www.rorcrating.com. You will firstneed to download the appropriate LV TCC application form and complete it to attach when you pay.
Is the Expedited (fast track) service available for LV TCC applications?
We advise submitting your application in good time to make sure there is time to sort out any queries;
the Rating Office is very busy through the first 6 months of the year and at least two weeks should beallowed. However, in the event that you need your LV TCC within 5 working days then an Expedited(fast track) fee will apply which will be an additional £1.50 per metre (ex VAT).
Min121013 (1) MJU

51

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
I have had one LV TCC and now want to apply for a second one for another event. Am I allowed
to change any of the data?
Yes, you can amend the data each time you apply for an LV TCC, for instance if you want to use
different sails. Note that the Rating Authority may have applied standard hull data and would notnormally change this without official measurement. The application form for a second certificate (LV2)
is available on the website.
I held an IRC certificate in the last two years, but an LV TCC would be more appropriate for the
racing I want to do. Can I convert my old certificate?
Yes, there is a different form for boats rated in the last two years who would like to switch to LV TCC.
Please see the links on the webpage given at the top of this page for the form or contact the Rating
Office.
I have raced using an LV TCC and would now like to upgrade to a full IRC certificate. How do I
do that and how much will it cost?
It is easy to upgrade your certificate during the year, please see the links on the webpage given at the
top of this page for the appropriate form or contact the Rating Office. The fee will be the normal
application fee with a discount of £1.50 per metre LH.
As an event organiser, we would like to include LV TCCs, what do we have to do?
Please look at the information and terms and conditions on the website (see the link above). As longas your event does not require Endorsement and is in GBR then you are encouraged to allow LV
TCCs and all it needs is a small addition to the NOR. We do ask for a simple event application form
(available on the website) so that we can check that the event is eligible, and allocate an event code
so that we can send you a specific list of the LV TCCs for your event. For specific advice for yourevent, please contact the RORC Rating Office.
RORC Rating Office
Lymington
01590 677030
info@rorcrating.com

Min121013 (1) MJU

52

IRC Congress Meeting 2012
Limited Validity IRC TCCs - GBR 2013
Conditions of Issue and Use
1.

A ‘Limited Validity IRC TCC’ is an IRC TCC issued by the IRC Rating Authority for use by a
GBR boat for one race or regatta (or part of) comprising races run over not more than 9
consecutive days including any lay days.
Organising Authorities shall apply to the IRC Rating Authority for permission to accept GBR
boats holding LV TCCs in their event, for all or selected classes. In addition to invoking IRC
Rules, the Notice of Race shall include:
With the permission of the IRC Rating Authority, IRC Rule 8.2 is modified to include GBR boats
holding Limited Validity IRC TCCs.
[if selected classes then add “..in the following classes:…” ]The IRC Rating Authority will supply an Organising Authority with data for each boat holding avalid Limited Validity IRC TCC for that race or regatta. Organising Authorities shall not use theinformation in this for scoring any boat in any race other than those for which the Limited
Validity IRC TCC is valid.

2.

An IRC certificate will not be issued. Boats will be issued with a datasheet showing the data
used for calculation of the TCC. Copies of this datasheet will be available (on payment of a fee)to interested parties under the same conditions as the supply of copy certificates defined by IRC
Rule 8.14.

3.

Limited Validity IRC TCCs will not appear on IRC TCC listings.

4.

A Limited Validity IRC TCC is equivalent to and fully compatible with the TCC on a valid IRC
certificate.

5.

Limited Validity IRC TCCs are not available to boats holding valid IRC certificates.

6.

Limited Validity IRC TCCs are not available to boats with LH greater than 22.00m.

7.

Limited Validity IRC TCCs will not be Endorsed.

8.

Limited Validity IRC TCCs are available only to GBR boats and are not available to overseas
boats competing in British events.

9.

Boats holding Limited Validity IRC TCCs, whether valid or expired, will not be permitted to run
trial IRC TCCs but may submit different data for separate events.

10.

Except with the express permission of the IRC Rating Authority, the validity of a Limited Validity
IRC TCC shall be consecutive days only, including lay days.

11.

A boat may not hold Limited Validity IRC TCCs for more than two separate events in any
certificate year.

12.

A boat applying for a Limited Validity IRC TCC shall complete and return an IRC application
form available from www.rorcrating.com.

13.

Completed application forms shall be submitted through myIRC or by E-Mail to
info@rorcrating.com at least 14 days before the first day of validity. Applicants shall state theevent and the dates for which the Limited Validity IRC TCC is to be valid.

14.

The fee for a Limited Validity IRC TCC will be £1.50 / metre LH + £5.00 per day of validity.

Min121013 (1) MJU

53

IRC Congress Meeting 201215.

Boats holding Limited Validity IRC TCCs, whether valid or expired, wishing to upgrade to a full
IRC certificate during the course of the same certificate year will receive a discount on thecertification fee.

16.

Boats that only held Limited Validity IRC TCCs during 2013 will be invited to apply for a full IRC
certificate in 2014 and will receive a discount on the certification fee.

END

Min121013 (1) MJU

54